
I rt? 

y^o 



Book : 

' B^O 

















































a* 









































■ 




















































































































■ 


































































































































































































( 


























* 





















JEAN ME8L1ER 










SUPERSTITION IN ALL AGES : 


BY 

JEAN MESLIER, 

A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, 


WHO, AFTER A PASTORAL SERVICE OF THIRTY YEARS AT ETREPIGNY AND 
BUT IN CHAMPAGNE, FRANCE, WHOLLY ABJURED RELIGIOUS 
DOGMAS, AND LEFT AS HIS 


LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT 


TO HIS PARISHIONERS, AND TO THE WORLD, TO BE PUBLISHED AFTER HIS 
DEATH, THE FOLLOWING PAGES, ENTITLED 


COMMON SENSE. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH ORIGINAL BY 

MISS ANNA KNOOP. 



• ; 



NEW YORK: 

PETER ECKLER, 35 Fulton Street, 

1890. 


T>Lz??3 
' H &3 


c 0 p^£ 


COPYRIGHT, 1878, BY 

*0ISS ANNA KNOOF 




V 




SljT 




PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 


By translating into both the English and German 
languages Le Bon Sens, containing the Last Will and 
Testament of the French curate Jean Meslier, Miss 
Anna Knoop has performed a most useful and meritorious 
task, and in issuing a new edition of this work, it is but 
justice to her memory* to state that her translation has re- 
ceived the endorsement of our most competent critics. 

In a letter dated Newburyport, Mass., Sep. 23, 1878, 
Mr. James Parton, the celebrated author, commends Miss 
Knoop for “ translating Meslier’ s book so well,” and says 
that : 

“ This work of the honest pastor is the most curious 
“ and the most powerful thing of the kind which the last 

“ century produced Paine and Voltaire had 

“ reserves, but Jean Meslier had none. He keeps nothing 
“ back ; and yet, after all, the wonder is not that there 
“ should have been one priest who left that testimony at 
” his death, but that all priests do not. True, there is a 
“ great deal more to be said about religion, which I believe 
‘ ‘ to be an eternal necessity of human nature, but no man 
” has uttered the negative side of the matter with so much 
“ candor and completeness as Jean Meslier.” 

The value of the testimony of a catholic priest, who in his 
last moments recanted the errors of his faith and asked God’s 
pardon for having taught the catholic religion, was fully 
appreciated by Voltaire, who highly commended this grand 
work of Meslier. He voluntarily made every effort to 

♦Miss Knoop died Jan. n, 1889. 


tv 


publisher’s preface. 


increase its circulation, and even complained to D’Alembert 
“ that there were not as many copies in all Paris as he 
“ himself had dispersed throughout the mountains of 
“ Switzerland.”* He earnestly entreats his associates to 
print and distribute in Paris an edition of at least four or 
five thousand copies, and at the suggestion of D’Alembert, 
made an abstract or abridgment of The Testament “ so 
“ small as to cost no more than five-pence , and thus to be 
“ fitted for the pocket and reading of every workman." \ 

The Abb6 Barruel claims in his Memoirs\ to detect in 
the writings of Voltaire and of the leading Encyclopedists, 
a conspiracy not only against the Altar but also against the 
Throne. He severely denounces the “ Last Will of fean 
“ Meslier, — that famous Curate of Etrepigni, — whose 
“ apostacy and blasphemies made so strong an impression 
“ on the minds of the populace, ”|| and he styles the plan 
of D’Alembert for circulating a few thousand copies of 
the Abstract of the Will , as a “base project against the 
‘ ‘ doctrines of the Gospel. ”§ He even asserts his belief that : 

“ The Jacobins will one day declare that all men are 
“ free, that all men are equal ; and as a consequence of this 
“ Equality and Liberty they will conclude that every man 
“ must be left to the light of reason. That every religion 
“ subjecting man’s reason to mysteries, or to the authority 
“ of any revelation speaking in God’s name, is a religion 
“ of constraint and slavery ; that as such it should be an- 

* See Letter 104, Voltaire to D’Alembert, f Letter 146, from D’Alembert. 

t See History of Jacobinism by the Abb€ Barruel, 4 vols. 8 vo. translated by the 
Hon. Robert Clifford, F. R. S., and printed in London in 1798. The learned Abb6 
defines Jacobinism as “ the error of every man who. judging of all things by the 
“ standard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority that is 
“ not derived from the light of nature. It is the error of every man who denies 
“ the possibility of any mystery beyond the limits of his reason, of every one who, 
“ discarding revelation in defence of the pretended rights of Reason, Equality, 
" and Liberty, seeks to subvert the whole fabric of the Christian religion. ’ P. 4. 

| History of Jacobinism, page 144. § Ibid, page 145. 


publisher’s preface. 


V 


‘ ‘ nihilated in order to reestablish the indefeasible rights of 
‘ * Equality and Liberty as to the belief or disbelief of all 
“ that the reason of man approves or disapproves: and 
“ they will call this Equality and Liberty the reign of 
“ Reason and the empire of Philosophy.” * 

The results which the Abb6 Barruel so clearly foresaw 
have at length been realized. The labors of the Jacobins 
have not been in vain, and the Revolution they incited has 
restored France to the government of the people ! 

“With ardent hope for the future, ’ ’ says President Carnot 
in his centennial address, May 5, 1889, ‘ ‘ I greet in the palace 
” of the monarchy the representatives of a nation that is 
“ now in complete possession of herself, that is mistress 
” of her destinies, and that is in the full splendor and 
“ strength of liberty. The first thoughts on this solemn 
” meeting turn to our fathers. That immortal generation 
“ of 1789, by dint of courage and many sacrifices, secured 
” for us benefits which we must bequeath to our sons as 
“ a most precious inheritance. Never can our gratitude 
” equal the grandeur of the services rendered by our 
“ fathers to France and to the human race. . . . The 

“ Revolution was based upon the rights of man. It created 
” a new era in history and founded modern society.” 

This is literally true. The freethinkers of France have 
taught mankind the doctrines of Liberty , Equality , and 
Fraternity. They have taught the dignity of human reason, 
and the sacredness of human rights. They have broken 
the bondage of the altar, and severed the shackles of the 
throne ; and it is to be regretted that at the centennial cele- 
bration held in this city on April 30th, 1889, the appointed 
oratorf did not realize the grandeur of the occasion, and did 
not, like Carnot, pay a just tribute to our allies, the reformers 

• History of Jacobinism, page 51. 

fSee the Centennial Address of the Hon. Chauncey M. Depew. 


VI 


publisher’s preface. 


of Europe, as well as to the fathers of the republic. But the 
people of America will remember what the politician has for- 
gotten. They will remember the names and deeds of their 
foreign benefactors as well as of the American patriots of ’76. 
When they recall the illustrious Europeans who fought for 
our liberties they will remember the name of Lafayette ; 
when they think of the Declaration of Independence they will 
not forget the name of Thomas Jefferson ; and when they 
speak of ‘ ‘ the times that tried men’s souls ’ ’ they will recall 
with gratitude the name of Thomas Paine. 

Although the ecclesiastical conclave at Rome claims the 
power of working miracles in defiance of Nature’s laws, yet 
with or without miracles, they have never answered the 
simple arguments advanced by Jean Meslier ; although 
they claim to hold the keys of Paradise, and bind on earth 
the souls that are to be bound in heaven, yet year by year 
their waning power refutes their senseless boast ; although 
they boldly assert the dogma of popish infallibility, yet the 
loss of the temporal power once wielded by Rome, and the 
death of each succeeding pontiff, attest both the Pope’s 
fallibility and the Pope’s mortality. Indeed, the successor 
of St. Peter is but human — the sacred college at Rome is 
but mortal ; and faith and dogma cannot forever resist the 
influence of light and knowledge. The power of Catholi- 
cism is surely declining throughout Europe ; and if it has 
become aggressive in our American cities, is it not because 
the friends of freedom have forgotten the well-known axiom 
that “ eternal vigilance is the price of liberty ” ? 

Peter Eckler. 


New York , May 21 , 1889. 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR 


Some years ago a copy of John Meslier fell 
into my hands. I was struck with the simple 
truthfulness of his arguments, and the thought 
never left me of the happy change that would 
be produced all over the world when the re- 
ligious prejudices should be dispelled, and 
when all the different nations and sects would 
unite and lend each other a friendly hand. 

Since I had the opportunity of hearing the 
speeches and lectures of liberal men, it has 
seemed to me that the time has come for this 
work of John Meslier to be appreciated, and 
I concluded to translate it into the language 
of my adopted country, presuming that many 
would be happy to study it. 

In this faith I offer it now to the public, and 
I hope that the name of John Meslier will be 
honored as one of the greatest benefactors ol 
humanity. 


Anna Knoop, 







































CONTENTS. 


Preface of the Editor of the French Edition 17 

Correspondence . . 19 

Life of John Meslier, by Voltaire 27 

Inscription on the Envelope containing the last Will of 

John Meslier 29 

The declaration of this Curate to his Parishioners . . 30 

Comparison between Meslier and Woolston ... 32 

Decree of the National Convention upon the proposition 

to erect a Statue to the Curate John Meslier . . 34 

Common Sense, by the Curate Meslier. Preface of the 
Author 35 


Chapter 

I. — Common Sense. Apologue .... 
II. — What is Theology ? 

III. — Continuation 

IV. — Man born neither Religious nor Deistical . 

V. — It is not necessary to believe in a God, and the 
most reasonable thing is not to think of Him . 
VI. — Religion is founded upon Credulity 
VII. — Every Religion is an Absurdity .... 
VIII. — The notion of God is impossible . . . . 

IX. — Origin of Superstition 

X. — Origin of all Religion 

XI. — In the name of Religion Charlatans take advan- 
tage of the weakness of men .... 

XII. — Religion entices Ignorance by the aid of the Mar- 

velous 

XIII. — Continuation 

XIV. — There never would have been any Religion 

if there had never been any dark and bar- 
barous ages 

XV. — All Religion was born of the desire to dominate 


45 

47 


48 

49 

49 

50 

50 

51 


51 


5 i 

53 


53 

53 


Contents. 


Chaftbk 

XVI. — That which serves as a basis for all Relig- 

ion is very uncertain .... 

XVII. — It is impossible to be convinced of the Ex- 

istence of God 

XVIII. — Continuation 

XIX. — The Existence of God is not proved . 

XX. — To say that God is a Spirit, is to speak 
without saying anything at all 

XXI. — Spirituality is a Chimera .... 

XXII. — All which exists springs from the bosom of 

Matter 

XXIII. — What is the Metaphysical God of Modem 

Theology ? 

XXIV. — It would be more Rational to worship the 
Sun than a Spiritual God 

XXV. — A Spiritual God is incapable of willing and 

of acting 

XXVI.— What is God ? 

XXVII. — Remarkable contradictions of Theology 
XXVIII. — To adore God is to adore a Fiction . 

XXIX. — The Infinity of God, and the impossibility 
of knowing the Divine Essence, occa- 
sions and justifies Atheism . 

XXX. — It is neither less nor more criminal to be- 
lieve in God, than not to believe in Him . 

XXXI. — The belief in God is nothing but a mechan- 
ical habitude of Childhood 

XXXII. — It 16 a prejudice which has been handed 
down from Fathers to Children 

XXXIII. — Origin of Prejudices 

XXXIV. — How they take root and spread . 

XXXV. — Men would never have believed in the re- 
ligious principles of Modem Theology, 
if they had not been taught at an age 
when they were incapable of reasoning . 
XXXVI. — The wonders of Nature do not prove the 

Existence of God 

XXXVII. — The wonders of Nature explain themselves 
by natural causes . 

XXXVIII. — Continuation 
XXXIX. — The World has not been created, and Mat- 
ter moves by itself . 

XL. — Continuation 
XLI. — Other proofs that Motion is in the essence 
of Matter, and that it is not necessary 
to suppose a Spiritual Motor . 


Pao» 

53 

53 

54 

54 

55 

55 

56 

56 

57 

57 
5 » 

58 
58 


59 

60 

61 


62 

62 

62 


63 

63 

64 

65 

66 
66 


Contents . 


; 

Chaptss Pag* 

XLII. — The existence of Man does not prove that 

of God 69 

XLII I. — However, neither Man nor the Universe is 

the effect of Chance .... 70 

XLIV. — Neither does the order of the Universe 

prove the Existence of a God ... 72 

XLV. — Continuation 73 

XLVI. — A pure Spirit can not be intelligent, and to 

adore a Divine Intelligence is a Chimera 74 

XLVI I. — All the qualities which Theology gives to 
its God, are contrary to the very essence 
which it supposes Him to have . . 75 

XLVIIl. — Continuation 76 

XLIX. — It is absurd to say that the Human Race 

is the object and the end of Creation . 76 

L. — God is not made for Man, nor Man for God 77 

LI. — It is not true that the object of the forma- 
tion of the Universe was to render men 

happy 78 

LII. — What is called Providence is but a word 

void of sense 78 

LIII. — This pretended Providence is less occupied 
in conserving than in disturbing the 
World — more an Enemy than a Friend 

of Man 80 

LIV. — No ! the World is not governed by an In- 
telligent Being 82 

LV. — God can not be called Immutable . . 83 

LVI. — Evil and Good are the necessary effects of 
natural causes. What is a God who can 

change nothing ? 83 

LVI I. — The vanity of Theological consolations in 
the troubles of this life. The hope of a 
Heaven, of a Future Life, is but imagi- 
nary 84 

LVI 1 1 . — Another idle fancy 86 

LIX. — In vain does Theology exert itself to acquit 
God of Man’s defects. Either this God 
is not free, or He is more wicked than 

good 87 

LX. — We can not believe in a Divine Providence, 

in an Infinitely Good and Powerful God 88 

LXI. — Continuation 90 

LXII. — Theology makes of its God a Monster of 
nonsense, of injustice, of malice, and 
atrocity ; a Being absolutely hateful ! . 91 


8 


Contents . 


Chaptbk Pag* 

LXIIL— All Religion inspires but a cowardly and 

inordinate fear of the Divinity . . 92 

LXIV. — There is in reality no difference between 
Religion and the most somber and ser- 
vile Superstition 93 

LXV. — According to the ideas which Theology 
gives of Divinity, to love God is impos- 
sible 93 

LXVI. — By the invention of the Dogma of the eter- 
nal torments of Hell, Theologians have 
made of their God a Detestable Being, 
more wicked than the most wicked of 
Men, a perverse and cruel Tyrant with- 
out aim 94 

LXVII. — Theology is but a series of palpable con- 
tradictions 96 

LXVII I. — The pretended works of God do not prove at 

all what we call Divine Perfection . . 97 

LXIX. — The Perfection of God does not show to 
any more advantage in the pretended 
creation of Angels and pure Spirits . 98 

LXX. — Theology preaches the Omnipotence of its 
God, and continually shows Him Impo- 
tent 98 

LXXI. — According to all the Religious Systems of 
the earth, God would be the most Ca- 
pricious and the most Insensate of Beings 99 
LXXII. — It is absurd to say that Evil does not come 

from God 100 

LXXI 1 1 . — The foresight which is attributed to God 
would give the right to guilty Men, whom 
He punishes, to complain of His cruelty 100 
LXXIV. — Absurdity of the Theological Fables upon 

Original Sin and upon Satan . . .101 

LXXV. — The Devil, like Religion, was invented to 

enrich the Priests 102 

LXXVI. — If God could not render Human Nature 

sinless, He has no right to punish Men . 103 

LXXVI I. — It is absurd to say that God’s conduct must 
be a mystery to Man, and that he has no 
right to examine and judge it . . 105 

LXXVIII. — It is absurd to call Him a God of justice 
and of goodness, who inflicts evil indis- 
criminately on the good and the wicked, 
upon the innocent and the guilty ; it is 
idle to demand that the unfortunate 


CMArniR 


Contents. 


9 

Pagh 


should console themselves for their mis- 
fortunes in the very arms of the One who 
alone is the Author of them . . .107 

LXXIX. — A God who punishes the faults which He 
could have prevented is a Fool, who adds 
injustice to foolishness .... 108 

LXXX. — Free-will is an idle fancy . . . .110 

LXXXI. — We should not conclude from this that So- 
ciety has not the right to chastise the 

wicked 1 14 

LXXXI I. — Refutation of the arguments in favor of 

Free-will 114 

LXXXIII. — Continuation 115 

LXXXI V. — God Himself, if there was a God, would 
not be free ; hence the uselessness of all 

Religion 116 

LXXXV. — Even according to Theological principles, 

Man is not free one instant . . .117 

LXXXVI. — All evil, all disorder, all sin, can be at- 

tributed but to God, and, consequently, 

He has no right to punish or reward . 1 17 

LXXXVI I. — Men’s prayers to God prove sufficiently 
that they are not satisfied with the Di- 
vine Economy 1 18 

LXXXVI II. — The reparation of the iniquities and the 
miseries of this world in another world, 
is an idle conjecture and an absurd 

supposition 120 

LXXXIX. — Theology justifies the evil and injustice per- 
mitted by its God, only by conceding to 
this God the right of the strongest, that 
is to say, the violation of all rights, or in 
commanding from men a stupid devotion 1 20 

XC. — Redemption and the continual extermina- 
tions attributed to Jehovah in the Bible, 
are so many absurd and ridiculous in- 
ventions, which presuppose an unjust 
and barbarous God . . . .123 

XCI. — How can we discover a tender, generous, 
and equitable Father, in a Being who 
has created His children but to make 

them unhappy ? 1 24 

XCII. — The life of mortals, all which takes place 
here below, is against Man’s liberty and 
against the justice and goodness of a 
pretended God .... 124 


10 


Contents . 


Pao> 


Qurm 

XCIII. — It is not true that we owe any gratitude to 

what we call Providence . . .126 

XCIV. — To pretend that Man is the beloved Child of 
Providence, God’s favorite, the only object 
of His labors, the king of Nature, is folly . 127 
XCV. — Comparison between Man and Animals . 129 

XCVI. — There are no more detestable Animals in this 

world than Tyrants 130 

XCVI I. — Refutation of Man’s excellence . . . 13 1 

XCVI 1 1 . — An Oriental Legend 132 

XCIX. — It is foolish to see in the Universe but the 
benefactions of Heaven, and to believe that 
this Universe was made but for Man . .134 

C. — What is the Soul ? We know nothing about 
it. If this pretended Soul was of a differ- 
ent substance from that of the Body, their 
union would be impossible . . .136 

CL — The existence of a Soul is an absurd supposi- 
tion, and the existence of an Immortal Soul 
is a still more absurd supposition , .138 

Cl I. — It is evident that the whole of Man dies . 139 

C 1 II. — Incontestable proofs against the spirituality 

of the Soul 140 

CIV. — The absurdity of Supernatural causes which 

Theologians constantly call to their aid . 141 

CV. — It is false that Materialism can be debasing 

to the Human Race 142 

CVI. — Continuation 142 

CVII. — The dogma of Another Life is useful but for 
those who profit by it at the expense of 

the credulous public 143 

CVIII. — It is false that the dogma of Another Life 
can be consoling ; and even if it were, it 
would be no proof that this assertion is 

true 144 

CIX. — All Religious principles are imaginary. In- 
nate sense is but the effect of a rooted 
habit. God is an idle fancy, and the quali- 
ties which are lavished upon Him destroy 

each other 147 

CX. — Every Religion is but a system invented for 
the purpose of reconciling contradictions 
by the aid of Mysteries . . . -149 

CXI. — Absurdity and inutility of the Mysteries forged 

in the sole interest of the Priests . .150 

CXII. — Continuation 150 


Contents . 


11 


Cmaftbb Pagi 

CXIII. — Continuation 1 52 

CXIV. — A Universal God should have levealed a 

Universal Religion 153 

CXV. — The proof that Religion is not necessary, is 

that it is unintelligible . . . . 154 

CXVI. — All Religions are ridiculed by those of op- 
posite, though equally insane, belief. . 155 

CXVII. — Opinion of a celebrated Theologian . .156 

CXVIII. — The Deist's God is no less contradictory, no 

less fanciful than the Theologian’s God . 157 

CXIX. — We do not prove at all the existence of a 
God, by saying that in all ages every na- 
tion has acknowledged some kind of Di- 
vinity 158 

CXX. — All the Gods are of a barbarous origin ; all 
Religions are antique monuments of igno- 
rance, superstition, and ferocity; and Mod- 
ern Religions are but ancient follies re- 
vived 160 

CXXI. — All Religious ceremonies bear the seal of 

stupidity or barbarity . . . 161 

CXXI I. — The more ancient and general a Religious 
opinion is, the greater the reason for sus- 
pecting it 163 

CXXIII. — Skepticism in the matter of Religion can be 
the effect of but a superficial examination 
of Theological principles . . . .164 

CXXIV. — Revelation refuted 167 

CXXV. — Where, then, is the proof that God did ever 

show Himself to Men or spoke to them ? 168 

CXXVI. — Nothing establishes the truth of Miracles . 169 

CXXVII. — If God had spoken, it would be strange that 
He had spoken differently to all the adher- 
ents of the different sects, who damn each 
other, who accuse each other, with reason, 
of superstition and impiety . . .170 

CXXVIII. — Obscure and suspicious origin of Oracles . 172 
CXXIX. — Absurdity of pretended Miracles . . 172 

CXXX. — Refutation of Pascal’s manner of Reason- 
ing as to how we should judge Miracles . 174 

CXXXI. — Even according to the principles of The- 
ology itself every new revelation should 
be refuted as false and impious. . . 175 

CXXXII. — Even the blood of the Martyrs testifies 
against the truth of Miracles, and against 
the Divine origin which Christianity claim* 176 


12 


Contents. 


Pag* 


C XXXIII. — The fanaticism of the Martyrs, the inter- 
ested zeal of Missionaries, prove in no- 
wise the truth of Religion . . .177 

CXXXIV. — Theology makes of its God an enemy of 

common sense and of enlightenment . 179 

CXXXV. — Faith is irreconcilable with Reason, and 

Reason is preferable to Faith . .179 

CXXXV I. — How absurd and ridiculous is the sophis- 
try of those who wish to substitute 

Faith for Reason 181 

CXXXVII. — How pretend that Man ought to believe 
verbal testimony on what is claimed to 
be the most important thing for him ? . 183 

CXXXVII I. — Faith takes root but in weak, ignorant, or 

indolent minds 184 

CXXXIX. — To teach that there exists one true Re- 
ligion is an absurdity, and a cause of 
much trouble among the nations . . 185 

CXL. — Religion is not necessary to Morality and 

to Virtue 188 

CXLI. — Religion is the weakest restraint that can 

be opposed to the passions . . .190 

CXLII. — Honor is a more salutary and a stronger 

check than Religion . . . . 1 90 

CXLIII. — Religion is certainly not a powerful check 
upon the passions of Kings, who are 
nearly always cruel and fantastic tyrants 
by the example of this same God, of 
whom they claim to be the representa- 
tives ; they use Religion but to brutal- 
ize their slaves so much the more, to 
lull them to sleep in their fetters, and to 
prey upon them with the greater facility 191 
CXLIV. — Origin of the most absurd, the most 
ridiculous, and the most odious usurpa- 
tion called the Divine Right of Kings. 

Wise counsels to Kings . . .193 

CXLV. — Religion is fatal to Politics ; it forms but 
licentious and perverse despots, as well 
as abject and unhappy subjects . .195 

CXLVI. — Christianity extended itself but by encour- 
aging despotism, of which it, like all 
Religion, is the strongest support . .196 

CXLVI I. — The only aim of Religious principles is to 
perpetuate the tyranny of Kings, and 
to sacrifice the nations to them . .198 


Contents. 


13 


Chatti* Pass 

CXLVIII. — How fatal it is to persuade Kings that 
they have only God to fear if they in- 
jure the people 200 

CXLIX. — A Religious King is a scourge to his 

kingdom 201 

CL. — The shield of Religion is for tyranny a 
weak rampart against the despair of the 
People. A despot is a madman who 
injures himself and sleeps upon the edge 

of a precipice 203 

CLI. — Religion favors the errors of Princes by 

delivering them from fear and remorse 204 

CLII. — What is an Enlightened Sovereign ? . 205 

CLI II. — The dominant passions and crimes of 
Priestcraft. With the assistance of its 
pretended God and of Religion, it as- 
serts its passions and commits its 

crimes 206 

CLIV. — Charlatanry of the Priests . . . 207 

CLV. — Countless calamities are produced by Re- 
ligion, which has tainted Morality and 
disturbed all just ideas and all sound 

doctrines 208 

CLVI. — Every Religion is intolerant, and, conse- 
quently, destructive of beneficence . 21 1 
CLVII. — Abuse of a State Religion . . .212 

CLVIII. — Religion gives license to the ferocity of 
the People by legitimizing it, and au- 
thorizes crime by teaching that it can 
be useful to the designs of God . .213 

CLIX. — Refutation of the argument that the evils 
attributed to Religion are but the sad 
effects of the passions of men . .214 

CLX. — All morality is incompatible with Re- 
ligious opinions 215 

CLXI. — The morals of the Gospel are impraticable 217 

CLXII. — A society of Saints would be impossible . 218 

CLXIII. — Human Nature is not depraved ; and a 
morality which contradicts this fact is 

not made for Men 220 

CLXIV. — Of Jesus Christ, the Priests’ God . . 222 

CLXV. — The dogma of the Remission of Sins has 
been invented in the interest of the 

Priests 223 

CLXVI. — The fear of God is powerless against hu- 
man passions 224 


Contents. 


14 

Ckaftxr P*v« 

CLXVII. — The invention of Hell is too absurd to 

prevent evil 225 

CLXVIII. — Absurdity of the morality and of the Re- 
ligious virtues established solely in the 
interest of the Priests .... 227 

CLXIX. — What does that Christian charity amount 
to, such as Theologians teach and prac- 
tice ? 228 

CLXX. — Confession, the golden mine for the Priests, 
has destroyed the true principles of mo- 
rality 232 

CLXXI. — The supposition of the existence of a God 

is not necessary to morality . . .234 

CLXXII. — Religion and its supernatural morality are 
fatal to the people and opposed to Man’s 

nature 235 

CLXXIII. — How the union of Religion and Politics is 

fatal to the People and to the Kings . 236 

CLXXIV. — Creeds are burdensome and ruinous to 

the majority of nations .... 238 
CLXXV. — Religion paralyzes morality . . . 239 

CLXXVI. — Fatal consequences of piety . . . 240 

CLXXVII. — The supposition of Another Life is neither 
consoling to Man nor necessary to mo- 
rality 241 

CLXXVIII. — An Atheist has more motives for acting 
uprightly, more conscience than a Re- 
ligious Person 242 

CLXXI X. — An Atheist King would be preferable to 
one who is Religious and wicked, as we 

often see them 244 

CLXXX. — The morality acquired by Philosophy is 

sufficient to Virtue .... 245 

CLXXXI. — Opinions rarely influence conduct . . 246 

CLXXXII. — Reason leads Men to irreligion and to 
Atheism because Religion is absurd, 
and the God of the Priests is a mali- 
cious and ferocious Being . . . 248 

CLXXXII I. — Fear alone creates Theists and Devotees . 249 

CLXXXI V. — Can we, or should we, love or not love God ? 250 
CLXXXV. — The various and contradictory ideas which 
exist everywhere upon God and Relig- 
ion, prove that they are but idle fancies 251 

CLXXXVI. — The existence of God, which is the basis 
of all Religion, has not yet been dem- 
onstrated 253 


Contents . 


Pa»7H 


CHArrEK 

CLXXXVII. — Priests, more than Unbelievers, act from 

interest 253 

CLXXXVIII. — Pride, presumption, and corruption of 
the heart are more often found among 
Priests than among Atheists and Un- 
believers 254 

CLXXXIX. — Prejudices are but for a time, and no 
power is durable except it be based 
upon Truth, Reason, and Equity . 257 
CXC. — How much power and consideration the 
Ministers of the Gods would have, if 
they became the Apostles of Reason 
and the Defenders of Liberty . . 258 

CXCI. — What a happy and great revolution 
would take place in the Universe if 
Philosophy was substituted for Relig- 
ion 259 

CXC II. — The retraction of an unbeliever at the 
hour of death, proves nothing against 

incredulity 261 

CXCIII. — It is not true that Atheism sunders all 

the ties of Society .... 263 
CXCIV. — Refutation of the assertion that Relig- 
ion is necessary for the masses . . 263 

CXCV. — Every rational system is not made for the 

multitude 265 

CXCVI. — Futility and danger of Theology. Wise 

counsels to Princes .... 267 
CXC VII. — Fatal effects of Religion upon the Peo- 
ple and the Princes .... 268 

CXCVIII.— Continuation 270 

CXCIX. — History teaches us that all Religions 
were established by the aid of igno- 
rance, and by Men who had the ef- 
frontery to style themselves the envoys 

of Divinity 271 

CC. — All Ancient and Modem Religions have 
mutually borrowed their abstract rev- 
eries and their ridiculous practices . 273 

CCI. — Theology has always turned Philosophy 

from its true course .... 274 

CCII. — Theology neither explains nor enlightens 

anything in the World or in Nature . 275 

CCIII. — How Theology has fettered human mor- 
als and retarded the progress of en- 
lightenment, of reason, and of truth . 277 


i6 


Contents. 


Chaptkk Pack 

CCIV. — Continuation 279 

CCV. — We could not repeat too often how extravagant 

and fatal Religion is 280 

CCVI. — Religion is Pandora’s Box, and this fatal Box is 

open 281 


ABSTRACT OF TESTAMENT OF JOHN 
MESLIER, BY VOLTAIRE. 

I. — Of Religions 283 

II. — Of Miracles 305 

III. — Similarity between Ancient and Modern Mira- 

cles 310 

IV. — Of the Falsity of the Christian Religion . .316 

V. — The Holy Scriptures — (1) Of the Old Testa- 
ment 323 

VI. — (2) The New Testament 324 

VII. — Errors of Doctrine and of Morality . . . 330 


PREFACE OF THE EDITOR 

OF THE FRENCH EDITION OF 1830. 


It is said that truth is generally revealed by 
dying lips. When men full of health and enjoying 
all the pleasures of life, exert themselves without 
ceasing, to excite minds and to take advantage of 
their fanaticism by wearing the mask of religion, it 
will not be without interest or importance to know 
what other men, invested with the same ministry, 
have taught under the impulse of a conscience 
quickened by the approach of the final hour. Their 
confessions are more valuable because they carry 
with them the spirit of contrition. It is then that 
the truth, which is no longer obscured by narrow 
passions and sordid interests, presents itself in all 
its brilliancy, and imposes upon him who has kept 
it hidden during his life, the duty, and even the 
necessity, of unveiling it fully at his death. It is 
then that human speech, losing in a measure its 
terrestrial nature, becomes persuasive and con- 
vincing. 

We know this fact of a celebrated preacher who 
in the beginning of the Revolution stood in the 


1 8 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

same pulpit which we are pleased to call the pulpit 
of truth, and with his hand upon his heart declared 
that till then he had taught only falsehood. He 
did more ; he implored his parishioners to forgive 
him for the gross errors in which he had kept them, 
and congratulated them upon having at last arrived 
at a period when it was permitted to establish the 
empire of reason upon the ruins of prejudice. 
Times have changed very much, it is true ; however, 
so long as the press shall be able to combat the 
fatal errors of religious fanaticism, and perhaps even 
to some extent prevent its violence, it will be the 
duty of every friend of humanity to reproduce con- 
tinually the full retractions which opposed the sin- 
cerity and conscience of the dying to the bad faith 
and hypocritical avidity of the living. Guided by 
this intention, and ashamed to see the human race, 
in a land just freed from the yoke of prejudice, 
give birth to a disgraceful juggling which will ter- 
minate in dominating authority, and associate itself 
with the persecutions of which our incredulous or 
dissenting ancestors were the sad victims, we be- 
lieve it useful to reprint the last lessons of a priest — 
an honest man — bequeathed to his fellow-citizens 
and to posterity. The service we render to Philos- 
ophy will be so much the greater when we can 
consider as immutable, perpetual, permanent, and 
ready to appear in the hour of need, the edition 


Correspondence . 


19 


which we are preparing of “ COMMON SENSE, BY 
the Priest Jean Meslier, and his Dying 
Confession.” 

To do justice to these two works, to which we 
have added analytical notes, which will greatly 
facilitate our researches, we will limit ourselves by 
giving the imposing approbation of two philoso- 
phers of the eighteenth century — Voltaire and 
d’Alembert. They certainly understood much bet- 
ter the sublimity of evangelical morality, and spoke 
of it in a manner more worthy of its author, than 
did those who deified it to profit by its divinity, 
and who abused so cruelly the ignorance and bar- 
barity of the first centuries, to establish, in the 
interest of their fortunes and power, so many 
base prejudices, so many puerile and superstitious 
practices. 

Here is what Voltaire and d’Alembert thought 
of the curate Meslier and of his work. Their letters 
are presented here in order to excite curiosity and 
convince the judgment : 

VOLTAIRE TO D’ALEMBERT. 

Ferney, February , 1762. 

They have printed in Holland the Testament of 
Jean Meslier. I trembled with horror in reading 
it. The testimony of a priest, who, in dying, asks 
God’s pardon for having taught Christianity, must 


20 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

be a great weight in the balance of Liberals. 1 
will send you a copy of this Testament of the anti- 
Christ, because you desire to refute it. You have 
but to tell me by what manner it will reach you. 
It is written with great simplicity, which unfortu- 
nately resembles candor. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Ferney, February 25, 1762. 

Meslier also has the wisdom of the serpent. He 
sets an example for you ; the good grain was hid- 
den in the chaff of his book. A good Swiss has 
made a faithful abstract and this abstract can do a 
great deal of good. What an answer to the inso- 
lent fanatics who treat philosophers like libertines. 
What an answer to you, wretches that you are, this 
testimony of a priest, who asks God’s pardon for 
having been a Christian ! 

D’ALEMBERT’S ANSWER. 

Paris, March 31, 1762. 

A misunderstanding has been the cause, my dear 
philosopher, that I received but a few days since 
the work of Jean Meslier, which you had sent al- 
most a month ago. I waited till I received it to 
write to you. It seems to me that we could in- 
scribe upon the tombstone of this curate : “ Here 
lies a very honest priest, curate of a village in 


Correspondence . 


21 


Champagne, who, in dying, asks God’s pardon for 
naving been a Christian, and who has proved by 
this, that ninety-nine sheep and one native of 
Champagne do not make a hundred beasts.” I 
suspect that the abstract of his work is written by a 
Swiss, who understands French very well, though 
he affects to speak it badly. This is neat, earnest, 
and concise, and I bless the author of the abstract, 
whoever he may be. “ It is of the Lord to cul- 
tivate the vine.” After all, my dear philosopher, a 
little longer, and I do not know whether all these 
books will be necessary, and whether man will not 
have enough sense to comprehend by himself that 
three do not make one, and that bread is not God. 
The enemies of reason are playing a very foolish 
part at this moment, and I believe that we can say 
as in the song : 

“ To destroy all these people 
You should let them alone.” 

I do not know what will become of the religion 
of Christ, but its professors are in false garb. What 
Pascal, Nicole, and Arnaud could not do, there is 
an appearance that three or four absurd and igno- 
rant fanatics will accomplish. The nation will give 
this vigorous blow within, while she is doing so little 
outside, and we will put in the abbreviated chrono- 
logical pages of the year 1762 : “ This year France 


22 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

lost all its colonies and expelled the Jesuits/' I 
know nothing but powder, which with so little ap- 
parent force, could produce such great results. 

VOLTAIRE TO D’ALEMBERT. 

DELICES, July 12, 1762. 

It appears to me that the Testament of Jean 
Meslier has a great effect ; all those who read it are 
convinced ; this man discusses and proves. He 
speaks in the moment of death, at the moment 
when even liars tell the truth fully. This is the 
strongest of all arguments. Jean Meslier is to con- 
cert the world. Why is his gospel in so few hands ? 
How lukewarm you are at Paris ! You hide your 
light under a bushel ! 

D’ALEMBERT’S ANSWER. 

Paris, July 31, 1762. 

You reproach us with lukewarmness, but I be- 
lieve I have told you already that the fear of the 
fagot is very cooling. You would like us to print 
the Testament of Jean Meslier and distribute four 
or five thousand copies. The infamous fanaticism, 
for infamous it is, would lose little or nothing, and 
we should be treated as fools by those whom we 
would have converted. Man is so little enlight- 
ened to-day only because w^e had the precaution or 
the good fortune to enlighten him little by little. 


Correspondence. 


23 


If the sun should appear all of a sudden in a cave, 
the inhabitants would perceive only the harm it 
would do their eyes. The excess of light would 
result only in blinding them. 

D’ALEMBERT TO VOLTAIRE. 

Paris, July 9, 1764. 

Apropos, they have lent me that work attributed 
to St. Evremont, and which is said to be by Dumar- 
sais, of which you spoke to me some time ago ; it 
is good, but the Testament of Meslier is still 
better ! 

VOLTAIRE TO D’ALEMBERT. 

FERNEY, July 16, 1764. 

The Testament of Meslier ought to be in the 
pocket of all honest men ; a good priest, full of 
candor, who asks God’s pardon for deceiving him- 
self, must enlighten those who deceive themselves. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE COUNT D’ARGENTAL. 

Aux Deuces, February 6, 1762. 

But no little bird told me of the infernal book 
of that curate, Jean Meslier; a very important 
work to the angels of darkness. An excellent cate- 
chism for Beelzebub. Know that this book is 
very rare ; it is a treasure ! 


24 


Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 


VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Aux Deuces, May 31, 1762. 

It is just that I should send you a copy of the 
second edition of Meslier. In the first edition they 
forgot the preface, which is very strange. You have 
wise friends who would not be sorry to have this 
book in their secret cabinet. It is excellent to form 
youthful minds. The book, which was sold in 
manuscript form for eight Louis-d’or, is illegible. 

This little abstract is very edifying. Let us thank 
the good souls who give it gratuitously, and let us 
pray God to extend His benedictions upon this 
useful reading. 

VOLTAIRE TO D’AMILAVILLE. 

AUX Deuces, February 8, 1762. 

My brother shall have a Meslier soon as I shall 
have received the order; it would seem that my 
brother has not the facts. Fifteen to twenty years 
ago the manuscript of this work sold for eight 
Louis-d’or ; it was a very large quarto. There are 
more than a hundred copies in Paris. Brother 
Thiriot understands the facts. It is not known 
who made the abstract, but it is taken wholly, word 
for word, from the original. There are still many 
persons who have seen the curate Meslier. It 
would be very useful to make a new edition of this 


Correspondence. 25 

little work in Paris ; it can be done easily in three 
or four days. 


VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Ferney, December 6, 1762. 

But I believe there will never be another impres- 
sion of the little book of Meslier. Think of the 
weight of the testimony of one dying, of a priest, 
of a good man. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Ferney, July 6, 1764. 

Three hundred Mesliers distributed in a province 
have caused many conversions. Ah, if I was as- 
sisted ! 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Ferney, September 29, 1764. 

There are too few Mesliers and too many swin- 
dlers. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

Aux Delices, October 8, 1764. 

Names injure the cause; they awaken prejudice. 
Only the name of Jean Meslier can do good, be- 
cause the repentance of a good priest in the hour 
of death must make a great impression. This 
Meslier should be in the hands of all the world. 


26 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


VOLTAIRE TO MADAM DE FLO RIAN. 

Aux Deuces, May 20, 1762. 

My dear niece, it is very sad to be so far from 
you. Read and read again Jean Meslier; he is a 
good curate. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE MARQUIS D’ARGENCE. 

March 2, 1763. 

I have found a Testament of Jean Meslier, which 
I send you. The simplicity of this man, the purity 
of his manners, the pardon which he asks of God, 
and the authenticity of his book, must produce a 
great effect. I will send you as many copies as you 
want of the Testament of this good curate. 

VOLTAIRE TO HELVETIUS. 

Aux Deuces, May 1, 1763. 

They have sent me the two abstracts of Jear 
Meslier. It is true that it is written in the style of 
a carriage-horse, but it is well suited to the street. 
And what testimony! that of a priest who asks 
pardon in dying, for having taught absurd and hor- 
rible things ! What an answer to the platitudes of 
fanatics who have the audacity to assert that phi- 
losophy is but the fruit of libertinage ! 


LIFE OF JEAN MESLIER. 


BY VOLTAIRE. 

Jean Meslier, born 1678, in the village of 
Mazerny, dependency of the duchy of Rethel, was 
the son of a serge weaver; brought up in the 
country, he nevertheless pursued his studies and 
succeeded to the priesthood. At the seminary, 
where he lived with much regularity, he devoted 
himself to the system of Descartes. 

Becoming curate of Etrepigny in Champagne 
and vicar of a little annexed parish named Bue, he 
was remarkable for the austerity of his habits. 

Devoted in all his duties, every year he gave 
what remained of his salary to the poor of his par- 
ishes ; enthusiastic, and of rigid virtue, he was very 
temperate, as much in regard to his appetite as in 
relation to women. 

MM. Voiri and Delavaux, the one curate of 
Varq, the other curate of Boulzicourt, were his 
confessors, and the only ones with whom he as- 
sociated. 

The curate Meslier was a rigid partisan of jus- 
tice, and sometimes carried his zeal a little too far 

(27) 


28 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

The lord of his village, M. de Touilly, having ill- 
treated some peasants, he refused to pray for him 
in his service. M. de Mailly, Archbishop of Rheims, 
before whom the case was brought, condemned him. 
But the Sunday which followed this decision, the 
abbot Meslier stood in his pulpit and complained 
of the sentence of the cardinal. “ This is,” said he, 
“ the general fate of the poor country priest ; the 
archbishops, who are great lords, scorn them 
and do not listen to them. Therefore, let us 
pray for the lord of this place. We will pray for 
Antoine de Touilly, that he may be converted and 
granted the grace that he may not wrong the poor 
and despoil the orphans.” His lordship, who was 
present at this mortifying supplication, brought 
new complaints before the same archbishop, who 
ordered the curate Meslier to come to Donchery, 
where he ill-treated him with abusive language. 

There have been scarcely any other events in his 
life, nor other benefice, than that of Etrepigny. 
He died in the odor of sanctity in the year 1733, 
fifty-five years old. It is believed that, disgusted 
with life, he expressly refused necessary food, be- 
cause during his sickness he was not willing to take 
anything, not even a glass of wine. 

At his death he gave all he possessed, which 
was inconsiderable, to his parishioners, and desired 
to be buried in his garden. 


Life of Jean Meslier. 


29 


They were greatly surprised to find in his house 
three manuscripts, each containing three hundred 
and sixty-six pages, all written by his hand, signed 
and entitled by him, “ My Testament .” This work, 
which the author addressed to his parishioners and 
to M. Leroux, advocate and procurator for the 
parliament of Meziers, is a simple refutation of all 
the religious dogmas, without excepting one. The 
grand vicar of Rheims retained one of the three 
copies; another was sent to Monsieur Chauvelin, 
guardian of the State’s seal ; the third remained at 
the clerk’s office of the justiciary of St. Minehould. 
The Count de Caylus had one of those three copies 
in his possession for some time, and soon afterward 
more than one hundred were at Paris, sold at ten 
Louis-d’or apiece. A dying priest accusing him- 
self of having professed and taught the Christian 
religion, made a deeper impression upon the mind 
than the “ Thoughts of Pascal.” 

The curate Meslier had written upon a gray pa- 
per which enveloped the copy destined for his par- 
ishioners these remarkable words : “ I have seen and 
recognized the errors, the abuses, the follies, and 
the wickedness of men. I have hated and despised 
them. I did not dare say it during my life, but I 
will say it at least in dying, and after my death ; and 
it is that it may be known, that I write this present 
memorial in order that it may serve as a witness of 


30 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

truth to all those who may see and read it if they 
choose.” 

At the beginning of this work is found this doc- 
ument (a kind of honorable amend, which in his 
letter to the Count of d’Argental of May 31, 1762, 
Voltaire qualifies as a preface), addressed to his 
parishioners. 

“ You know,” said he, “ my brethren, my disinter- 
estedness ; I do not sacrifice my belief to any vile 
interest. If I embraced a profession so directly 
opposed to my sentiments, it was not through 
cupidity. I obeyed my parents. I would have 
preferred to enlighten you sooner if I could have 
done it safely. You are witnesses to what I assert. 
[ have not disgraced my ministry by exacting the 
requitals, which are a part of it. 

" I call heaven to witness that I also thoroughly 
despised those who laughed at the simplicity of the 
blind people, those who furnished piously consider- 
able sums of money to buy prayers. How horrible 
this monopoly ! I do not blame the disdain which 
those who grow rich by your sweat and your pains, 
show for their mysteries and their superstitions; 
but I detest their insatiable cupidity and the signal 
pleasure such fellows take in railing at the igno- 
rance of those whom they carefully keep in this 
state of blindness. Let them content themselves 
with laughing at their own ease, but at least let 


Life of Jean Me slier. 


3 1 


them not multiply their errors by abusing the blind 
piety of those who, by their simplicity, procured 
them such an easy life. You render unto me, my 
brethren, the justice that is due me. The sympa- 
thy which I manifested for your troubles saves me 
from the least suspicion. How often have I per- 
formed gratuitously the functions of my ministry. 
How often also has my heart been grieved at not be- 
ing able to assist you as often and as abundantly as 
I could have wished ! Have I not always proved 
to you that I took more pleasure in giving than in 
receiving? I carefully avoided exhorting you to 
bigotry, and I spoke to you as rarely as possible of 
our unfortunate dogmas. It was necessary that I 
should acquit myself as a priest of my ministry, 
but how often have I not suffered within myself 
when I was forced to preach to you those pious lies 
which I despised in my heart. What a disdain I had 
for my ministry, and particularly for that supersti- 
tious Mass, and those ridiculous administrations of 
sacraments, especially if I was compelled to perform 
them with the solemnity which awakened all your 
piety and all your good faith. What remorse I had 
for exciting your credulity ! A thousand times 
upon the point of bursting forth publicly, I was 
going to open your eyes, but a fear superior to my 
strength restrained me and forced me to silence 
until my death.” 


32 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

The abbot Meslier had written two letters to the 
curates of his neighborhood to inform them of his 
Testament ; he told them that he had consigned to 
the chancery of St. Minnehould a copy of his man- 
uscript in 3 66 leaves in octavo ; but he feared it 
would be suppressed, according to the bad custom 
established to prevent the poor from being in- 
structed and knowing the truth. 

The curate Meslier, the most singular phenome- 
non ever seen among all the meteors fatal to the 
Christian religion, worked his whole life secretly in 
order to attack the opinions he believed false. To 
compose his manuscript against God, against all 
religion, against the Bible and the Church, he had 
no other assistance than the Bible itself, Moreri 
Montaigne, and a few fathers. 

While the abbot Meslier naively acknowledged 
that he did not wish to be burned till after his 
death, Thomas Woolston, a doctor of Cambridge, 
published and sold publicly at London, in his own 
house, sixty thousand copies of his “ Discourses ” 
against the miracles of Jesus Christ. 

It was a very astonishing thing that two priests 
should at the same time write against the Christian 
religion. The curate Meslier has gone further yet 
than Woolston ; he dares to treat the transport of 
our Saviour by the devil upon the mountain, the 
wedding of Cana, the bread and the fishes, as ab- 


Life of Jean Meslier. 


33 


surd fables, injurious to divinity, which were ignored 
during three hundred years by the whole Roman 
Empire, and finally passed from the lower class to 
the palace of the emperors, when policy obliged 
them to adopt the follies of the people in order the 
more easily to subjugate them. The denunciations 
of the English priest do not approach those of the 
Champagne priest. Woolston is sometimes indul- 
gent, Meslier never. He was a man profoundly 
embittered by the crimes he witnessed, for which 
he holds the Christian religion responsible. There 
is no miracle which to him is not an object of con- 
tempt and horror ; no prophecy that he does not 
compare to those of Nostredamus. He wrote thus 
against Jesus Christ when in the arms of death, at 
a time when the most dissimulating dare not lie, 
and when the most intrepid tremble. Struck witl 
the difficulties which he found in Scripture, he in- 
veighed against it more bitterly than the Acosta 
and all the Jews, more than the famous Porphyre, 
Celse, Iamblique, Julian, Libanius, and all the par- 
tisans of human reason. 

There were found among the books of the curate 
Meslier a printed manuscript of the Treatise of 
Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, upon the exist- 
ence of God and His attributes, and the reflections 
of the Jesuit Tournemine upon Atheism, to which 
treatise he added marginal notes signed by his hand. 


34 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


DECREE 

of the National Convention upon the proposi- 
tion to erect a statue to the curate Jean Meslier, 
the 27 Brumaire, in the year II. (November 17, 1793). 
The National Convention sends to the Committee 
of Public Instruction the proposition made by one 
of its members to erect a statue to Jean Meslier, 
curate at Etrepigny, in Champagne, the first priest 
who had the courage and the honesty to abjure 
religious errors. 

PRESIDENT AND SECRETARIES. 

Signed — P. A. Laloy, President ; Bazire, Charles 
Duval, Philippeaux, Frecine, and Merlin (de Thion- 
ville), Secretaries. 

Certified according to the original. 

MEMBERS OF TKE COMMITTEE OF DECREES AND 
PROCESS-VERBAL. 

Signed — Batellier, Echasseriaux, Monnel, Beck- 
er, Vemetey, P6rard, Vinet, Bouillerot, Auger, 
Cordier, Delecloy, and Cosnard. 


PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR. 


When we wish to examine in a cool, calm way 
the opinions of men, we are very much surprised 
to find that in those which we consider the most 
essential, nothing is more rare than to find them 
using common sense ; that is to say, the portion 
of judgment sufficient to know the most simple 
truths, to reject the most striking absurdities, and 
to be shocked by palpable contradictions. We 
have an example of this in Theology, a science 
revered in all times, in all countries, by the great- 
est number of mortals ; an object considered the 
most important, the most useful, and the most 
indispensable to the happiness of society. If they 
would but take the trouble to sound the principles 
upon which this pretended science rests itself, they 
would be compelled to admit that the principles 
which were considered incontestable, are but haz- 
ardous suppositions, conceived in ignorance, propa- 
gated by enthusiasm or bad intention, adopted by 
timid credulity, preserved by habit, which never 
reasons, and revered solely because it is not com- 
prehended. Some, says Montaigne, make the world 

( 35 ) 


36 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

believe that which they do not themselves believe 
a greater number of others make themselves be- 
lieve, not comprehending what it is to believe. In 
a word, whoever will consult common sense upon 
religious opinions, and will carry into this examina- 
tion the attention given to objects of ordinary in- 
terest, will easily perceive that these opinions have 
no solid foundation ; that all religion is but a castle 
in the air ; that Theology is but ignorance of natu- 
ral causes reduced to a system ; that it is but a long 
tissue of chimeras and contradictions ; that it pre- 
sents to all the different nations of the earth only 
romances devoid of probability, of which the hero 
himself is made up of qualities impossible to rec- 
oncile, his name having the power to excite in all 
hearts respect and fear, is found to be but a vague 
word, which men continually utter, being able to 
attach to it only such ideas or qualities as are be- 
lied by the facts, or which evidently contradict each 
other. The notion of this imaginary being, or rather 
the word by which we designate him, would be of 
no consequence did it not cause ravages without 
number upon the earth. Born into the opinion 
that this phantom is for them a very interesting 
reality, men, instead of wisely concluding from its 
incomprehensibility that they are exempt from 
thinking of it, on the contrary, conclude that they 
can not occupy themselves enough about it, that 


Preface of the Author. 


37 


they must meditate upon it without ceasing, reason 
without end, and never lose sight of it. The invin- 
cible ignorance in which they are kept in this respect, 
far from discouraging them, does but excite their 
curiosity ; instead of putting them on guard against 
their imagination, this ignorance makes them posi- 
tive, dogmatic, imperious, and causes them to quar- 
rel with all those who oppose doubts to the reve- 
ries which their brains have brought forth. What 
perplexity, when we attempt to solve an unsolvable 
problem ! Anxious meditations upon an object im- 
possible to grasp, and which, however, is supposed 
to be very important to him, can but put a man 
into bad humor, and produce in his brain dan- 
gerous transports. When interest, vanity, and am- 
bition are joined to such a morose disposition, so- 
ciety necessarily becomes troubled. This is why sc 
many nations have often become the theaters of 
extravagances caused by nonsensical visionists, who, 
publishing their shallow speculations for the eter- 
nal truth, have kindled the enthusiasm of princes 
and of people, and have prepared them for opin- 
ions which they represented as essential to the 
glory of divinity and to the happiness of empires. 
We have seen, a thousand times, in all parts of our 
globe, infuriated fanatics slaughtering each other, 
lighting the funeral piles, committing without 
scruple, as a matter of duty, the greatest crimes. 


38 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

Why? To maintain or to propagate the imperti- 
nent conjectures of enthusiasts, or to sanction the 
knaveries of impostors on account of a being who 
exists only in their imagination, and who is known 
only by the ravages, the disputes, and the follies 
which he has caused upon the earth. 

Originally, savage nations, ferocious, perpetually 
at war, adored, under various names, some God con- 
formed to their ideas; that is to say, cruel, car- 
nivorous, selfish, greedy of blood. We find in all 
the religions of the earth a God of armies, a jealous 
God, an avenging God, an exterminating God, a 
God who enjoys carnage and whose worshipers 
make it a duty to serve him to his taste. Lambs, 
bulls, children, men, heretics, infidels, kings, whole 
nations, are sacrificed to him. The zealous serv- 
ants of this barbarous God go so far as to believe 
that they are obliged to offer themselves as a sacri- 
fice to him. Everywhere we see zealots who, after 
having sadly meditated upon their terrible God, 
imagine that, in order to please him, they must do 
themselves all the harm possible, and inflict upon 
themselves, in his honor, all imaginable torments. 
In a word, everywhere the baneful ideas of Divinity, 
far from consoling men for misfortunes incident to 
their existence, have filled the heart with trouble, 
and given birth to follies destructive to them. 
How could the human mind, filled with frightful 


Preface of the Author. 


39 


phantoms and guided by men interested in per- 
petuating its ignorance and its fear, make progress ? 
Man was compelled to vegetate in his primitive 
stupidity ; he was preserved only by invisible pow- 
ers, upon whom his fate was supposed to depend # 
Solely occupied with his alarms and his unintel- 
ligible reveries, he was always at the mercy of his 
priests, who reserved for themselves the right of 
thinking for him and of regulating his conduct. 

Thus man was, and always remained, a child 
without experience, a slave without courage, a log- 
gerhead who feared to reason, and who could never 
escape from the labyrinth into which his ancestors 
had misled him ; he felt compelled to groan under 
the yoke of his Gods, of whom he knew nothing 
except the fabulous accounts of their ministers. 
These, after having fettered him by the ties of 
opinion, have remained his masters or delivered 
him up defenseless to the absolute power of ty- 
rants, no less terrible than the Gods, of whom they 
were the representatives upon the earth. Oppressed 
by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, 
it was impossible for the people to instruct them- 
selves and to work for their own welfare. Thus, 
religion, politics, and morals became sanctuaries, 
into which the profane were not permitted to en- 
ter. Men had no other morality than that which 
their legislators and their priests claimed as de* 


40 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

scended from unknown empyrean regions. The 
human mind, perplexed by these theological opin- 
ions, misunderstood itself, doubted its own powers, 
mistrusted experience, feared truth, disdained its 
reason, and left it to blindly follow authority. Man 
was a pure machine in the hands of his tyrants and 
his priests, who alone had the right to regulate his 
movements. Always treated as a slave, he had at 
all times and in all places the vices and dispositions 
of a slave. 

These are the true sources of the corruption of 
habits, to which religion never opposes anything 
but ideal and ineffectual obstacles ; ignorance and 
servitude have a tendency to make men wicked and 
unhappy. Science, reason, liberty, alone can reform 
them and render them more happy ; but every- 
thing conspires to blind them and to confirm them 
in their blindness. The priests deceive them, ty- 
rants corrupt them in order to subjugate them more 
easily. Tyranny has been, and will always be, the 
chief source of the depraved morals and habitual 
calamities of the people. These, almost always 
fascinated by their religious notions or by meta- 
physical fictions, instead of looking upon the nat- 
ural and visible causes of their miseries, attribute 
their vices to the imperfections of their nature, and 
their misfortunes to the anger of their Gods ; they 
offer to Heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, in 


Preface of the Author . 


4i 


order to put an end to their misfortunes, which are 
really due only to the negligence, the ignorance, 
and to the perversity of their guides, to the folly 
of their institutions, to their foolish customs, to 
their false opinions, to their unreasonable laws, and 
especially to their want of enlightenment. Let 
the mind be filled early with true ideas ; let man’s 
reason be cultivated ; let justice govern him ; and 
there will be no need of opposing to his passions 
the powerless barrier of the fear of Gods. Men 
will be good when they are well taught, well gov- 
erned, chastised or censured for the evil, and justly 
rewarded for the good which they have done to 
their fellow-citizens. It is idle to pretend to cure 
mortals of their vices if we do not begin by curing 
them of their prejudices. It is only by showing them 
the truth that they can know their best interests 
and the real motives which will lead them to hap- 
piness. Long enough have the instructors of the 
people fixed their eyes on heaven ; let them at last 
bring them back to the earth. Tired of an incompre- 
hensible theology, of ridiculous fables, of impene- 
trable mysteries, of puerile ceremonies, let the hu- 
man mind occupy itself with natural things, intelli- 
gible objects, sensible truths, and useful knowledge. 
Let the vain chimeras which beset the people be 
dissipated, and very soon rational opinions will fill 
the minds of those who were believed fated to be 



42 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

always in error. To annihilate religious prejudices, 
it would be sufficient to show that what is incon- 
ceivable to man can not be of any use to him. 
Does it need, then, anything but simple common 
sense to perceive that a being most clearly irrecon- 
cilable with the notions of mankind, that a cause 
continually opposed to the effects attributed to 
him ; that a being of whom not a word can be said 
without falling into contradictions; that a being 
who, far from explaining the mysteries of the uni- 
verse, only renders them more inexplicable ; that a 
being to whom for so many centuries men ad- 
dressed themselves so vainly to obtain their happi- 
ness and deliverance from their sufferings ; does it 
need, I say, more than simple common sense to 
understand that the idea of such a being is an idea 
without model, and that he is himself evidently 
not a reasonable being? Does it require more than 
common sense to feel that there is at least delirium 
and frenzy in hating and tormenting each other for 
unintelligible opinions of a being of this kind ? Fi- 
nally, does it not all prove that morality and virtue 
are totally incompatible with the idea of a God, 
whose ministers and interpreters have painted him 
in all countries as the most fantastic, the most un- 
just, and the most cruel of tyrants, whose pre- 
tended wishes are to serve as rules and laws for 
the inhabitants of the earth ? To discover the 


Preface of the Author. 


43 


true principles of morality, men have no need of 
theology, of revelation, or of Gods ; they need but 
common sense ; they have only to look within 
themselves, to reflect upon their own nature, to 
consult their obvious interests, to consider the ob- 
ject of society and of each of the members who 
compose it, and they will easily understand that 
virtue is an advantage, and that vice is an injury 
to beings of their species. Let us teach men to be 
just, benevolent, moderate, and sociable, not be- 
cause their Gods exact it, but to please men ; let 
us tell them to abstain from vice and from crime, 
not because they will be punished in another world, 
but because they will suffer in the present world. 
There are, says Montesquieu, means to prevent 
crime, they are sufferings; to change the man- 
ners, these are good examples. Truth is simple, 
error is complicated, uncertain in its gait, full of 
by-ways ; the voice of nature is intelligible, that of 
falsehood is ambiguous, enigmatical, and myste- 
rious ; the road of truth is straight, that of imposture 
is oblique and dark ; this truth, always necessary to 
man, is felt by all just minds; the lessons of reason 
are followed by all honest souls ; men are unhappy 
only because they are ignorant ; they are ignorant 
only because everything conspires to prevent them 
from being enlightened, and they are wicked only 
because their reason is not sufficiently developed. 











COMMON SENSE. 


Detexit quo dolose Vaticinandi furore sacerdotes mysteria, 
illis saepe ignota, audactur publicant. — Petron. Satyr. 

I. — APOLOGUE. 

There is a vast empire governed by a monarch, 
whose conduct does but confound the minds of his 
subjects. He desires to be known, loved, respected, 
and obeyed, but he never shows himself ; every- 
thing tends to make uncertain the notions which 
we are able to form about him. The people sub- 
jected to his power have only such ideas of the 
character and the laws of their invisible sovereign 
as his ministers give them ; these suit, however, be- 
cause they themselves have no idea of their mas- 
ter, for his ways are impenetrable, and his views 
and his qualities are totally incomprehensible ; 
moreover, his ministers disagree among themselves 
in regard to the orders which they pretend ema- 
nated from the sovereign whose organs they claim 
to be ; they announce them diversely in each prov- 
ince of the empire ; they discredit and treat each 
other as impostors and liars ; the decrees and or- 
dinances which they promulgate are obscure ; they 
are enigmas, made not to be understood or divined 


46 Common Sense , oy Jean Meslier. 

by the subjects for whose instruction they were in- 
tended. The laws of the invisible monarch need 
interpreters, but those who explain them are always 
quarreling among themselves about the true way 
of understanding them ; more than this, they da 
not agree among themselves ; all which they relate 
of their hidden prince is but a tissue of contradic- 
tions, scarcely a single word that is not contradicted 
at once. He is called supremely good, neverthe- 
less not a person but complains of his decrees. He 
is supposed to be infinitely wise, and in his admin- 
istration everything seems contrary to reason and 
good sense. They boast of his justice, and the 
best of his subjects are generally the least favored. 
We are assured that he sees everything, yet his 
presence remedies nothing. It is said that he is 
the friend of order, and everything in his universe 
is in a state of confusion and disorder ; all is created 
by him, yet events rarely happen according to his 
projects. He foresees everything, but his foresight 
prevents nothing. He is impatient if any offend 
him ; at the same time he puts every one in the 
way of offending him. His knowledge is admired 
in the perfection of his works, but his works are 
full of imperfections, and of little permanence. He 
is continually occupied in creating and destroying, 
then repairing what he has done, never appearing 
to be satisfied with his work. In all his enterprises 
he seeks but his own glory, but he does not suc- 
ceed in being glorified. He works but for the good 
of his subjects, and most of them lack the necessi- 
ties of life. Those whom he seems to favor, are 


What is Theology t 


47 


generally those who are the least satisfied with 
their fate ; we see them all continually revolting 
against a master whose greatness they admire, 
whose wisdom they extol, whose goodness they 
worship, and whose justice they fear, revering 
orders which they never follow. This empire is 
the world ; its monarch is God ; His ministers are 
the priests ; their subjects are men. 

II, — WHAT IS THEOLOGY? 

There is a science which has for its object only 
incomprehensible things. Unlike all others, it oc- 
cupies itself but with things unseen. Hobbes calls 
it “ the kingdom of darkness/’ In this land all 
obey laws opposed to those which men acknowl 
edge in the world they inhabit. In this marvel- 
ous region light is but darkness, evidence becomes 
doubtful or false, the impossible becomes credible, 
reason is an unfaithful guide, and common sense 
changed into delirium. This science is named 
Theology, and this Theology is a continual insult 
to human reasorn 

III. — CONTINUATION. 

By frequent repetition of if, but, and perhaps, 
we succeed in forming an imperfect and broken 
system which perplexes men’s minds to the extent 
of making them forget the clearest notions, and to 
render uncertain the most palpable truths. By the 
aid of this systematic nonsense, all nature has be- 
come an inexplicable enigma for man ; the visible 
world has disappeared to give place to invisible re- 


48 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

gions ; reason is obliged to give place to imagina- 
tion, which can lead us only to the land of chime- 
ras which she herself has invented. 

IV. — MAN BORN NEITHER RELIGIOUS NOR 
DEISTICAL. 

All religious principles are founded upon the 
idea of a God, but it is impossible for men to have 
true ideas of a being who does not act upon any 
one of their senses. All our ideas are but pictures 
of objects which strike us. What can the idea of 
God represent to us when it is evidently an idea 
without an object ? Is not such an idea as impossi- 
ble as an effect without a cause ? An idea without 
a prototype, is it anything but a chimera ? Some 
theologians, however, assure us that the idea of 
God is innate, or that men have this idea from the 
time of their birth. Every principle is a judgment ; 
all judgment is the effect of experience ; experience 
is not acquired but by the exercise of the senses : 
from which it follows that religious principles are 
drawn from nothing, and are not innate. 

V. — IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, 
AND THE MOST REASONABLE THING IS NOT 
TO THINK OF HIM. 

No religious system can be founded otherwise 
than upon the nature of God and of men, and 
upon the relations they bear to each other. But, 
in order to judge of the reality of these relations, 
we must have some idea of the Divine nature. But 
everybody tells us that the essence of God is in- 


Every Religion is an Absurdity . 49 

comprehensible to man ; at the same time they do 
not hesitate to assign attributes to this incompre- 
hensible God, and assure us that man can not dis- 
pense with a knowledge of this God so impossible 
to conceive of. The most important thing for men 
is that which is the most impossible for them to 
comprehend. If God is incomprehensible to man, 
it would seem rational never to think of Him at 
all ; but religion concludes that man is criminal if 
he ceases for a moment to revere Him. 

VI— RELIGION IS FOUNDED UPON CREDULITY. 

We are told that Divine qualities are not of a 
nature to be grasped by limited minds. The nat- 
ural consequence of this principle ought to be that 
the Divine qualities are not made to employ limited 
minds ; but religion assures us that limited minds 
should never lose sight of this inconceivable being, 
whose qualities can not be grasped by them : from 
which we see that religion is the art of occupying 
limited minds with that which is impossible for 
them to comprehend. 

VII. — EVERY RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY. 

Religion unites man with God or puts them in 
communication ; but do you say that God is infi- 
nite ? If God is infinite, no finite being can have 
communication or any relation with Him. Where 
there are no relations, there can be no union, no 
correspondence, no duties. If there are no duties 
between man and his God, there exists no religion 
for man. Thus by saying that God is infinite, you 


50 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

annihilate, from that moment, all religion for man, 
who is a finite being. The idea of infinity is for us 
xn idea without model, without prototype, without 
object. 

VIII. — THE NOTION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

If God is an infinite being, there can be neither 
in the actual world or in another any proportion 
between man and his God ; thus the idea of God 
will never enter the human mind. In the supposi- 
tion of a life where men will be more enlightened 
than in this one, the infinity of God will always 
place such a distance between his idea and the 
limited mind of man, that he will not be able to 
conceive of God any more in a future life than in 
the present. Hence, it evidently follows that the 
idea of God will not be better suited to man in the 
other life than in the present. God is not made 
for man ; it follows also that intelligences superior 
to man — such as angels, archangels, seraphims, and 
saints — can have no more complete notions of God 
than has man, who does not understand anything 
about Him here below. 

IX. — ORIGIN OF SUPERSTITION. 

How is it that we have succeeded in persuading 
reasonable beings that the thing most impossible 
to understand was the most essential for them. It 
is because they were greatly frightened ; it is be- 
cause when men are kept in fear they cease to rea- 
son ; it is because they have been expressly en- 
joined to distrust their reason. When the brain 


Religion Entices Ignorance. 51 

is troubled, we believe everything and examine 
nothing. 

X. — ORIGIN OF ALL RELIGION. 

Ignorance and fear are the two pivots of all relig- 
ion. The uncertainty attending man’s relation to 
his God is precisely the motive which attaches him 
to his religion. Man is afraid when in darkness — 
physical or moral. His fear is habitual to him 
and becomes a necessity ; he would believe that he 
lacked something if he had nothing to fear. 

XI. — IN THE NAME OF RELIGION CHARLATANS 

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WEAKNESS OF 
MEN. 

He who from his childhood has had a habit of 
trembling every time he heard certain words, needs 
these words, and needs to tremble. In this way he 
is more disposed to listen to the one who encour- 
ages his fears than to the one who would dispel 
his fears. The superstitious man wants to be afraid ; 
his imagination demands it. It seems that he fears 
nothing more than having no object to fear. Men 
are imaginary patients, whom interested charlatans 
take care to encourage in their weakness, in order 
to have a market for their remedies. Physicians 
who order a great number of remedies are more 
listened to than those who recommend a good 
regimen, and who leave nature to act. 

XII. — RELIGION ENTICES IGNORANCE BY THE AID 

OF THE MARVELOUS. 

If religion was clear, it would have fewer attrac- 
tions for the ignorant. They need obscurity, mys- 


52 Common Sense, by Jean Me slier. 

teries, fables, miracles, incredible things, which keep 
their brains perpetually at work. Romances, idle 
stories, tales of ghosts and witches, have more 
charms for the vulgar than true narrations. 

XIII. — CONTINUATION. 

In the matter of religion, men are but overgrown 
children. The more absurd a religion is, and the 
fuller of marvels, the more power it exerts ; the 
devotee thinks himself obliged to place no limits 
to his credulity; the more inconceivable things 
are, the more divine they appear to him ; the more 
incredible they are, the more merit he gives him- 
self for believing them. 

XIV. — THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY 
RELIGION IF THERE HAD NEVER BEEN ANY 
DARK AND BARBAROUS AGES. 

The origin of religious opinions dates, as a gen- 
eral thing, from the time when savage nations were 
yet in a state of infancy. It was to coarse, igno- 
rant, and stupid men that the founders of religion 
addressed themselves in all ages, in order to pre- 
sent them with Gods, ceremonies, histories of 
fabulous Divinities, marvelous and terrible fables. 
These chimeras, adopted without examination by 
the fathers, have been transmitted with more or 
less changes to their polished children, who often 
do not reason more than their fathers. 

XV. — ALL RELIGION WAS BORN OF THE DESIRE 
TO DOMINATE. 

The first legislators of nations had for their object 
to dominate. The easiest means of succeeding was 


53 


The Existence of God Impossible . 

to frighten the people and to prevent them from 
reasoning; they led them by tortuous paths in 
order that they should not perceive the designs of 
their guides ; they compelled them to look into the 
air, for fear they should look to their feet; they 
amused them upon the road by stories ; in a word, 
they treated them in the way of nurses, who em- 
ploy songs and menaces to put the children to 
sleep, or to force them to be quiet. 

XVI.— THAT WHICH SERVES AS A BASIS FOR ALL 
RELIGION IS VERY UNCERTAIN. 

The existence of a God is the basis of all religion. 
Few people seem to doubt this existence, but this 
fundamental principle is precisely the one which 
prevents every mind from reasoning. The first 
question of every catechism was, and will always 
be, the most difficult one to answer. 

XVII.— IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CONVINCED OF 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the 
existence of a being whose nature is not known, 
who remains inaccessible to all our senses, and of 
whose qualities we are constantly assured that they 
are incomprehensible to us ? In order to persuade 
me that a being exists, or can exist, he must begin 
by telling me what this being is ; in order to make 
me believe the existence or the possibility of such a 
being, he must tell me things about him which are 
not contradictory, and which do not destroy one an- 
other; finally, in order to convince me fully of the 


54 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

existence of this being, he must tell me things 
about him which I can comprehend, and prove to 
me that it is impossible that the being to whom he 
attributes these qualities does not exist. 

XVIII.— CONTINUATION. 

A thing is impossible when it is composed of two 
ideas so antagonistic, that we can not think of them 
at the same time. Evidence can be relied on only 
when confirmed by the constant testimony of our 
senses, which alone give birth to ideas, and enable 
us to judge of their conformity or of their incompat 
ibility. That which exists necessarily, is that of 
which the non-existence would imply contradic- 
tion. These principles, universally recognized, are 
at fault when the question of the existence of God 
is considered ; what has been said of Him is either 
unintelligible or perfectly contradictory; and for 
this reason must appear impossible to every man 
of common sense. 

XIX. — THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT PROVED. 

All human intelligences are more or less enlight- 
ened and cultivated. By what fatality is it that 
the science of God has never been explained ? The 
most civilized nations and the most profound think- 
ers are of the same opinion in regard to the matter 
as the most barbarous nations and the most igno- 
rant and rustic people. As we examine the subject 
more closely, we will find that the science of divin- 
ity by means of reveries and subtleties has but ob- 
scured it more and more. Thus far, all religion has 


Spirituality is a Chimera. 55 

been founded on what is called in logic, a “ begging 
of the question ; ” it supposes freely, and then 
proves, finally, by the suppositions it has made. 

XX.— TO SAY THAT GOD IS A SPIRIT, IS TO SPEAK 
WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL. 

By metaphysics, God is made a pure spirit, but has 
modern theology advanced one step further than 
the theology of the barbarians ? They recognized 
a grand spirit as master of the world. The barba- 
rians, like all ignorant men, attribute to spirits all 
the effects of which their inexperience prevents 
them from discovering the true causes. Ask a bar- 
barian what causes your watch to move, he will an- 
swer, “ a spirit ! ” Ask our philosophers what 
moves the universe, they will tell you “ it is a 
spirit.” 

XXI. — SPIRITUALITY IS A CHIMERA. 

The barbarian, when he speaks of a spirit, at- 
taches at least some sense to this word ; he un- 
derstands by it an agent similar to the wind, to 
the agitated air, to the breath, which produces, in- 
visibly, effects that we perceive. By subtilizing, 
the modern theologian becomes as little intelligible 
to himself as to others. Ask him what he means 
by a spirit ? He will answer, that it is an unknown 
substance, which is perfectly simple, which has 
nothing tangible, nothing in common with matter. 
In good faith, is there any mortal who can form 
the least idea of such a substance? A spirit in the 
language of modern theology is then but an absence 


56 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

of ideas. The idea of spirituality is another idea 
without a model. 

XXII. — ALL WHICH EXISTS SPRINGS FROM THE 
BOSOM OF MATTER. 

Is it not more natural and more intelligible to 
deduce all which exists, from the bosom of matter, 
whose existence is demonstrated by all our senses, 
whose effects we feel at every moment, which we 
see act, move, communicate, motion, and constant- 
ly bring living beings into existence, than to at- 
tribute the formation of things to an unknown 
force, to a spiritual being, who can not draw from 
his ground that which he has not himself, and 
who, by the spiritual essence claimed for him, is 
incapable of making anything, and of putting any- 
thing in motion ? Nothing is plainer than that they 
would have us believe that an intangible spirit can 
act upon matter. 

XXIII. — WHAT IS THE METAPHYSICAL GOD OF 
MODERN THEOLOGY? 

The material Jupiter of the ancients could move, 
build up, destroy, and propagate beings similar to 
himself ; but the God of modern theology is a 
sterile being. According to his supposed nature 
he can neither occupy any place, nor move matter, 
nor produce a visible world, nor propagate either 
men or Gods. The metaphysical God is a work- 
man without hands ; he is able but to produce 
clouds, suspicions, reveries, follies, and quarrels. 


God Incapable of Willing and Acting. 57 


XXIV. — IT WOULD BE MORE RATIONAL TO WOR- 
SHIP THE SUN THAN A SPIRITUAL GOD. 

Since it was necessary for men to have a God, 
why did they not have the sun, the visible God, 
adored by so many nations? What being had 
more right to the homage of mortals than the star 
of the day, which gives light and heat ; which in- 
vigorates all beings ; whose presence reanimates 
and rejuvenates nature ; whose absence seems to 
plunge her into sadness and languor? If some 
being bestowed upon men power, activity, benevo- 
lence, strength, it was no doubt the sun, which 
should be recognized as the father of nature, as the 
soul of the world, as Divinity. At least one could 
not without folly dispute his existence, or refuse 
to recognize his influence and his benefits. 

XXV. — A SPIRITUAL GOD IS INCAPABLE OF WILL- 

ING AND OF ACTING. 

The theologian tells us that God does not need 
hands or arms to act, and that He acts by His will 
alone. But what is this God who has a will ? And 
what can be the subject of this divine will? Is it 
more ridiculous or more difficult to believe in fair- 
ies, in sylphs, in ghosts, in witches, in were-wolfs, 
than to believe in the magical or impossible action 
of the spirit upon the body ? As soon as we admit 
of such a God, there are no longer fables or visions 
which can not be believed. The theologians treat 
men like children, who never cavil about the possi- 
bilities of the tales which they listen to. 


58 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

XXVI. — WHAT IS GOD? 

To unsettle the existence of a God, it is only 
necessary to ask a theologian to speak of Him ; as 
soon as he utters one word about Him, the least re- 
flection makes us discover at once that what he 
says is incompatible with the essence which he at- 
tributes to his God. Therefore, what is God ? It 
is an abstract word, coined to designate the hidden 
forces of nature ; or, it is a mathematical point, 
which has neither length, breadth, nor thickness. 
A philosopher* has very ingeniously said in speaking 
of theologians, that they have found the solution 
to the famous problem of Archimedes ; a point in 
the heavens from which they move the world. 

XXVII. — REMARKABLE CONTRADICTIONS OF 
THEOLOGY. 

Religion puts men on their knees before a be- 
ing without extension, and who, notwithstanding, 
is infinite, and fills all space with his immensity; 
before an almighty being, who never executes that 
which he desires ; before a being supremely good, 
and who causes but displeasure ; before a being, the 
friend of order, and in whose government every- 
thing is in disorder. After all this, let us conjec- 
ture what this God of theology is. 

XXVIII. — TO ADORE GOD IS TO ADORE A FICTION. 

In order to avoid all embarrassment, they tell us 
that it is not necessary to know what God is ; that 


* David Hume. 


The Infinity of God Justifies Atheism. 59 


we must adore without knowing ; that it is not per- 
mitted us to turn an eye of temerity upon His at- 
tributes. But if we must adore a God without 
knowing Him, should we not be assured that He ex- 
ists ? Moreover, how be assured that He exists 
without having examined whether it is possible 
that the diverse qualities claimed for Him, meet in 
Him? In truth, to adore God is to adore nothing 
but fictions of one’s own brain, or rather, it is to 
adore nothing. 

XXIX. — THE INFINITY OF GOD AND THE IMPOS- 
SIBILITY OF KNOWING THE DIVINE ESSENCE, 
OCCASIONS AND JUSTIFIES ATHEISM. 

Without doubt the more to perplex matters, 
theologians have chosen to say nothing about what 
their God is ; they tell us what He is not. By ne- 
gations and abstractions they imagine themselves 
composing a real and perfect being, while there can 
result from it but a being of human reason. A 
spirit has no body; an infinite being is a being 
which is not finite; a perfect being is a being 
which is not imperfect. Can any one form any real 
notions of such a multitude of deficiencies or absence 
of ideas ? That which excludes all idea, can it be 
anything but nothingness? To pretend that the 
divine attributes are beyond the understanding of 
the human mind is to render God unfit for men. 
If we are assured that God is infinite, we admit 
that there can be nothing in common between Him 
and His creatures. To say that God is infinite, is to 
destroy Him for men, or at least render Him use- 
less to them. 


6o Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

God, we are told, created men intelligent, but He 
did not create them omniscient : that is to say, ca- 
pable of knowing all things. We conclude that He 
was not able to endow him with intelligence suffi- 
cient to understand the divine essence. In this 
case it is demonstrated that God has neither the 
power nor the wish to be known by men. By what 
right could this God become angry with beings 
whose own essence makes it impossible to have 
any idea of the divine essence? God would evi- 
dently be the most unjust and the most unac- 
countable of tyrants if He should punish an atheist 
for not knowing that which his nature made it im- 
possible for him to know. 

XXX. — IT IS NEITHER LESS NOR MORE CRIMINAL 
TO BELIEVE IN GOD THAN NOT TO BELIEVE 
IN HIM. 

For the generality of men nothing renders an 
argument more convincing than fear. In conse- 
quence of this fact, theologians tell us that the 
safest side must be taken; that nothing is more 
criminal than incredulity; that God will punish 
without mercy all those who have the temerity to 
doubt His existence ; that His severity is just ; since 
it is only madness or perversity which questions 
the existence of an angry monarch who revenges 
himself cruelly upon atheists. If we examine these 
menaces calmly, we shall find that they assume 
always the thing in question. They must com- 
mence by proving to our satisfaction the existence 
of a God, before telling us that it is safer to believe. 


Belief in God a Habitude of Childhood. 61 

and that it is horrible to doubt or to deny it. Then 
they must prove that it is possible for a just God 
to punish men cruelly for having been in a state of 
madness, which prevented them from believing in 
the existence of a being whom their enlightened 
reason could not comprehend. In a word, they 
must prove that a God that is said to be full of 
equity, could punish beyond measure the invincible 
and necessary ignorance of man, caused by his re- 
lation to the divine essence. Is not the theologians’ 
manner of reasoning very singular? They create 
phantoms, they fill them with contradictions, and 
finally assure us that the safest way is not to doubt 
the existence of those phantoms, which they have 
themselves invented. By following out this meth- 
od, there is no absurdity which it would not be 
safer to believe than not to believe. 

All children are atheists — they have no idea of 
God; are they, then, criminal on account of this 
ignorance? At what age do they begin to be 
obliged to believe in God ? It is, you say, at the 
age of reason. At what time does this age begin ? 
Besides, if the most profound theologians lose 
themselves in the divine essence, which th£y boast 
of not comprehending, what ideas can common 
people have? — women, mechanics, and, in short, 
those who compose the mass of the human race ? 

XXXI. — THE BELIEF IN GOD IS NOTHING BUT A 
MECHANICAL HABITUDE OF CHILDHOOD. 

Men believe in God only upon the word of those 
who have no more idea of Him than they them- 


62 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

selves. Our nurses are our first theologians ; they 
talk to children of God as they talk to them of 
were-wolfs; they teach them from the most ten- 
der age to join the hands mechanically. Have the 
nurses clearer notions of God than the children, 
whom they compel to pray to Him ? 

XXXII.— IT IS A PREJUDICE WHICH HAS BEEN 
HANDED FROM FATHER TO CHILDREN. 

Religion is handed down from fathers to children 
as the property of a family with the burdens. Very 
few people in the world would have a God if care 
had not been taken to give them one. Each one 
receives from his parents and his instructors the 
God which they themselves have received from 
theirs; only, according to his own temperament, 
each one arranges, modifies, and paints Him agree- 
ably to his taste. 

XXXIII.— ORIGIN OF PREJUDICES. 

The brain of man is, especially in infancy, like a 
soft wax, ready to receive all the impressions we 
wish to make on it ; education furnishes nearly all 
his opinions, at a period when he is incapable of 
judging for himself. We believe that the ideas, 
true or false, which at a tender age were forced 
into our heads, were received from nature at our 
birth ; and this persuasion is one of the greatest 
sources of our errors. 

XXXIV. — HOW THEY TAKE ROOT AND SPREAD. 

Prejudice tends to confirm in us the opinions of 
those who are charged with our instruction. We 


The Wonders of Nature. 


6.3 


believe them more skillful than we are ; we suppose 
them thoroughly convinced themselves of the 
things they teach us. We have the greatest confi- 
dence in them. After the care they have taken of 
us when we were unable to assist ourselves, we 
judge them incapable of deceiving us. These are 
the motives which make us adopt a thousand er- 
rors without other foundation than the dangerous 
word of those who have educated us ; even the 
being forbidden to reason upon what they tell us, 
does not diminish our confidence, but contributes 
often to increase our respect for their opinions. 

XXXV.— MEN WOULD NEVER HAVE BELIEVED IN 
THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN THEOLOGY IF 
THEY HAD NOT BEEN TAUGHT AT AN AGE 
WHEN THEY WERE INCAPABLE OF REASONING. 

The instructors of the human race act very pru- 
dently in teaching men their religious principles 
before they are able to distinguish the true from 
the false, or the left hand from the right. It would 
be as difficult to tame the spirit of a man forty 
years old with the extravagant notions which are 
given us of Divinity, as to banish these notions 
from the head of a man who has imbibed them 
since his tenderest infancy. 

XXXVI.— THE WONDERS OF NATURE DO NOT 
PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

We are assured that the wonders of nature are 
sufficient to a belief in the existence of a God, and 
to convince us fully of this important truth. But 


64 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

how many persons are there in this world who 
have the leisure, the capacity, the necessary taste, 
to contemplate nature and to meditate upon its 
progress? The majority of men pay no attention 
to it. A peasant is not at all moved by the beauty 
of the sun, which he sees every day. The sailor is 
not surprised by the regular movements of the 
ocean ; he will draw from them no theological in- 
ductions. The phenomena of nature do not prove 
the existence of a God, except to a few forewarned 
men, to whom has been shown in advance the fin- 
ger of God in all the objects whose mechanism 
could embarrass them. The unprejudiced philoso- 
pher sees nothing in the wonders of nature but 
permanent and invariable law ; nothing but the 
necessary effects of different combinations of diver- 
sified substance. 

XXXVII. — THE WONDERS OF NATURE EXPLAIN 
THEMSELVES BY NATURAL CAUSES. 

Is there anything more surprising than the logic 
of so many profound doctors, who, instead of ac- 
knowledging the little light they have upon natural 
agencies, seek outside of nature — that is to say, in 
imaginary regions — an agent less understood than 
this nature, of which they can at least form some 
idea? To say that God is the author of the phe- 
nomena that we see, is it not attributing them to an 
occult cause ? What is God ? What is a spirit ? 
They are causes of which we have no idea. Sages ! 
study nature and her laws ; and when you can from 
them unravel the action of natural causes, do not 


The Wonders of Nature. 


65 


go in search of supernatural causes, which, very far 
from enlightening your ideas, will but entangle 
them more and more and make it impossible for 
you to understand yourselves. 

XXXVIII. — CONTINUATION. 

Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without 
a God ; that is to say, in order to explain what 
you understand so little, you need a cause which 
you do not understand at all. You pretend to 
make clear that which is obscure, by magnifying its 
obscurity. You think you have untied a knot by 
multiplying knots. Enthusiastic philosophers, in 
order to prove to us the existence of a God, you 
copy complete treatises on botany ; you enter into 
minute details of the parts of the human body ; you 
ascend into the air to contemplate the revolutions 
of the stars; you return then to earth to admire 
the course of the waters; you fly into ecstasies 
over butterflies, insects, polyps, organized atoms, 
in which you think to find the greatness of your 
God ; all these things will not prove the existence 
of this God ; they will only prove that you have not 
the ideas which you should have of the immense 
variety of causes and effects that can produce the 
infinitely diversified combinations, of which the 
universe is the assemblage. This will prove that 
you ignore nature, that you have no idea of her re- 
sources when you judge her incapable of producing 
a multitude of forms and beings, of which your 
eyes, even by the aid of the microscope, see but 
the least part ; finally, this will prove, that not be- 


66 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

ing able to know the sensible and comprehensible 
agents, you find it easier to have recourse to a 
word, by which you designate an agent, of whom 
it will always be impossible for you to form any 
true idea. 

XXXIX.— THE WORLD HAS NOT BEEN CREATED, 
AND MATTER MOVES BY ITSELF. 

They tell us gravely that there is no effect 
without a cause ; they repeat to us very often that 
rhe world did not create itself. But the universe is 
a cause, not an effect ; it is not a work, has not 
been made, because it was impossible that it should 
be made. The world has always been, its existence 
is necessary. It is the cause of itself. Nature, whose 
essence is visibly acting and producing, in order to 
fulfill her functions, as we see she does, needs no 
invisible motor far more unknown than herself. 
Matter moves by its own energy, by the necessary 
result of its heterogeneity ; the diversity of its 
movements or of its ways of acting, constitute 
only the diversity of substances; we distinguish 
one being from another but by the diversity of 
the impressions or movements which they com- 
municate to our organs. 

XL.— CONTINUATION. 

You see that everything in nature is in a state 
of activity, and you pretend that nature of itself is 
dead and without energy! You believe that all 
this, acting of itself, has need of a motor! Well! 
who i.s this motor? It is a spirit, that is to say, an 


Other Proofs . 


67 


absolutely incomprehensible and contradictory be- 
ing. Conclude then, I say to you, that matter acts 
of itself, and cease to reason about your spiritual 
motor, which has nothing that is necessary to put 
it into motion. Return from your useless excur- 
sions ; come down from an imaginary into a real 
world ; take hold of second causes ; leave to theo- 
logians their “ First Cause/’ of which nature has no 
need in order to produce all the effects which you 
see. 

XLI. — OTHER PROOFS THAT MOTION IS IN THE 
ESSENCE OF MATTER, AND THAT IT IS NOT 
NECESSARY TO SUPPOSE A SPIRITUAL MOTOR. 

It is but by the diversity of impressions or of ef- 
fects which substances or bodies make upon us, 
that we feel them, that we have perceptions and 
ideas of them, that we distinguish them one from 
another, that we assign to them peculiarities. 
Moreover, in order to perceive or to feel an ob- 
ject, this object must act upon our organs ; this 
object can not act upon us without exciting some 
motion in us ; it can not produce any motion in us 
if it is not itself in motion. As soon as I see an 
object, my eyes must be struck by it ; I can not 
conceive of light and of vision without a motion in 
the luminous, extended, and colored body which 
communicates itself to my eye, or which acts upon 
my retina. As soon as I smell a body, my olfac- 
tory nerve must be irritated or put into motion by 
the parts exhaled from an odorous body. As soon 
as I hear a sound, the tympanum of my ear must 


68 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

be struck by the air put in motion by a sonorous 
body, which could not act if it was not moved of 
itself. From which it follows, evidently, that with- 
out motion I can neither feel, see, distinguish, com- 
pare, nor judge the body, nor even occupy m>) 
thought with any matter whatever. It is said in 
the schools, that the essence of a being is that from 
which flow all the properties of that being. Now 
chen, it is evident that all the properties of bodies 
or of substances of which we have ideas, are due 
to the motion which alone informs us of their ex- 
istence, and gives us the first conceptions of it. I 
can not be informed or assured of my own exist- 
ence but by the motions which I experience within 
myself. I am compelled to conclude that motion 
is as essential to matter as its extension, and that it 
can not be conceived of without it. If one persists 
in caviling about the evidences which prove to us 
that motion is an essential property of matter, he 
must at least acknowledge that substances which 
seemed dead or deprived of all energy, take motion 
of themselves as soon as they are brought within 
the proper distance to act upon each other. Py- 
rophorus, when enclosed in a bottle or deprived of 
contact with the air, can not take fire by itself, but 
it burns as soon as exposed to the air. Flour and 
water cause fermentation as soon as they are mixed. 
Thus dead substances engender motion of them- 
selves. Matter has then the power to move itself, 
and nature, in order to act, does not need a motor 
whose essence would hinder its activity. 


Mans Existence Does Not Prove God's. 69 

XLII. — THE EXISTENCE OF MAN DOES NOT PROVE 
THAT OF GOD. 

Whence comes man ? What is his origin ? Is he 
the result of the fortuitous meeting of atoms? 
Was the first man formed of the dust of the 
earth ? I do not know ! Man appears to me to be 
a production of nature like all others she embraces. 
I should be just as much embarrassed to tell 
you whence came the first stones, the first trees, 
the first elephants, the first ants, the first acorns, 
as to explain the origin of the human species. 
Recognize, we are told, the hand of God, of an 
infinitely intelligent and powerful workman, in a 
work so wonderful as the human machine. I 
would admit without question that the human 
machine appears to me surprising ; but since man 
exists in nature, I do not believe it right to say 
that his formation is beyond the forces of nature. 
I will add, that I could conceive far less of the for- 
mation of the human machine, when to explain it 
to me they tell me that a pure spirit, who has 
neither eyes, nor feet, nor hands, nor head, nor 
lungs, nor mouth, nor breath, has made man by tak- 
ing a little dust and blowing upon it. The savage 
inhabitants of Paraguay pretend to be descended 
from the moon, and appear to us as simpletons ; 
the theologians of Europe pretend to be descended 
from a pure spirit. Is this pretension more sensible ? 

Man is intelligent, hence it is concluded that he 
must be the work of an intelligent being, and not 
of a nature devoid of intelligence. Although noth- 
ing is more rare than to see man use this intelli- 


70 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

gence, of which he appears so proud, I will admit 
that he is intelligent, that his necessities develop in 
him this faculty, that the society of other men con- 
tributes especially to cultivate it. But in the hu- 
man machine and in the intelligence with which it 
is endowed, I see nothing that shows in a precise 
manner the infinite intelligence of the workman who 
has the honor of making it. I see that this admir- 
able machine is subject to derangement ; that at that 
time this wonderful intelligence is disordered, and 
sometimes totally disappears ; from this I conclude 
that human intelligence depends upon a certain 
disposition of the material organs of the body, and 
that, because man is an intelligent being, it is not 
well to conclude that God must be an intelligent 
being, any more than because man is material, we 
are compelled to conclude that God is material. 
The intelligence of man no more proves the intel- 
ligence of God than the malice of men proves 
the malice of this God, of whom they pretend 
that man is the work. In whatever way theology 
is taken, God will always be a cause contradicted 
by its effects, or of whom it is impossible to judge 
by His works. We shall always see evil, imperfec- 
tions, and follies resulting from a cause claimed to 
be full of goodness, of perfections, and of wisdom. 

X LIII.' — HOWEVER, NEITHER MAN NOR THE UNI- 
VERSE IS THE EFFECT OF CHANCE. 

Then you will say that intelligent man and even 
the universe and all it encloses, are the effects of 
chance. No, I answer, the universe is not an ef- 


Man nor the Universe the Effect of Chance. 71 

feet ; it is the cause of all effects ; all the beings it 
embraces are the necessary effects of this cause 
which sometimes shows to us its manner of acting, 
out which often hides from us its way. Men may 
use the word “ chance ” to cover their ignorance of 
the true causes ; nevertheless, although they may 
ignore them, these causes act but by certain laws. 
There is no effect without a cause. 

Nature is a word which we make use of to desig- 
nate the immense assemblage of beings, diverse 
substances, infinite combinations, and all the va- 
rious motions which we see. All bodies, whether 
organized or not organized, are the necessary re- 
sults of certain causes, made to produce necessarily 
the effects which we see. Nothing in nature can 
be made by chance ; all follow fixed laws ; these 
laws are but the necessary union of certain effects 
with their causes. An atom of matter does not 
meet another atom by accident or by hazard ; this 
rencounter is due to permanent laws, which cause 
each being to act by necessity as it does, and can 
not act otherwise under the same circumstances. 
To speak about the accidental coming together of 
atoms, or to attribute any effects to chance, is to 
say nothing, if not to ignore the laws by which 
bodies act, meet, combine, or separate. 

Everything is made by chance for those who do 
not understand nature, the properties of beings, 
and the effects which must necessarily result from 
the concurrence of certain causes. It is not chance 
that has placed the sun in the center of our planetary 
system ; it is by its very essence, the substance of 


72 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier 

which it is composed, that it occupies this place, 
and from thence diffuses itself to invigorate the 
beings who live in these planets. 

XLIV. — NEITHER DOES THE ORDER OF THE UNI- 
VERSE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD. 

The worshipers of a God find, especially in the 
order of the universe, an invincible proof of the ex- 
istence of an intelligent and wise being who rules 
it. But this order is only a result of motions 
necessarily brought on by causes or by circum- 
stances which are sometimes favorable and some- 
times injurious to ourselves; we approve the for- 
mer and find fault with the latter. 

Nature follows constantly the same progress ; 
that is to say, the same causes produce the same 
effects, as long as their action is not interrupted by 
other causes which occasion the first ones to pro- 
duce different effects. When the causes, whose ef- 
fects we feel, are interrupted in their action by 
causes which, although unknown to us, are no less 
natural and necessary, we are stupefied, we cry out 
miracles ; and we attribute them to a cause far less 
known than all those we see operating before us. 
The universe is always in order; there can be no 
disorder for it. Our organization alone is suffering 
if we complain about disorder. Bodies, causes, be- 
ings, which this world embraces, act necessarilv ir. 
the manner in which we see them act, whether we 
approve or disapprove their action. Earthquakes, 
volcanoes, inundations, contagions, and famines are 
effects as necessary in the order of nature as the 


The Order of the Universe . 


73 


fall of heavy bodies, as the course of rivers, as the 
periodical movements of the seas, the blowing of 
the winds, the abundant rains, and the favorable 
effects for which we praise and thank Providence 
for its blessings. 

To be astonished that a certain order reigns in 
the world, is to be surprised to see the same causes 
constantly producing the same effects. To be 
shocked at seeing disorder, is to forget that the 
causes being changed or disturbed in their action, 
the effects can no longer be the same. To be as- 
tonished to see order in nature, is to be astonished 
that anything can exist ; it is to be surprised at 
one’s own existence. What is order for one being, 
is disorder for another. All wicked beings find 
that everything is in order when they can with im- 
punity put everything into disorder ; they find, on 
the contrary, that everything is in disorder when 
they are prevented from exercising their wickedness. 

XLV. — CONTINUATION. 

Supposing God to be the author and the motor 
of nature, there could be no disorder relating to 
Him ; all causes which He would have made 
would necessarily act according to their properties 
the essences and the impulsions that He had en- 
dowed them with. If God should change the ordi- 
nary course of things, He would not be immutable 
If the order of the universe — in which we believe 
we see the most convincing proof of His existence, 
of His intelligence, His power, and His goodness — 
should be inconsistent, His existence might be 


74 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

doubted ; or He might be accused at least of in- 
constancy, of inability, of want of foresight, and 
of wisdom in the first arrangement of things ; we 
would have a right to accuse Him of blundering in 
His choice of agents and instruments. Finally, 
if the order of nature proves the power and the 
intelligence, disorder ought to prove the weakness, 
inconstancy, and irrationality of Divinity. You say 
that God is everywhere; that He fills all space; 
that nothing was made without Him ; that matter 
could not act without Him as its motor. But in 
this case you admit that your God is the author of 
disorder; that it is He who deranges nature; that 
He is the Father of confusion ; that He is in man ; 
and that He moves man at the moment when he 
sins. If God is everywhere, He is in me; He acts 
with me ; He is deceived when I am deceived ; 
He questions with me the existence of God ; He 
offends God with me. Oh, theologians ! you never 
understand yourselves when you speak of God. 

XLVI. — A PURE SPIRIT CAN NOT BE INTELLIGENT 
AND TO ADORE A DIVINE INTELLIGENCE IS 
A CHIMERA. 

To be what we call intelligent, we must have 
ideas, thoughts, will ; to have ideas, thoughts, and 
will, we must have organs ; to have organs, we must 
have a body; to act upon bodies, we must have a 
body; to experience trouble, we must be capable 
of suffering; from which it evidently follows that a 
pure sf irit can not be intelligent, and can not be 
affected by that which takes place in the universe. 


Theology Contrary to the Essence of God. 75 

Divine intelligence, divine ideas, divine views, you 
say, have nothing in common with those of men. 
So much the better! But in this case, how can 
men judge of these views — whether good or evil — 
reason about these ideas, or admire this intelli- 
gence? It would be to judge, to admire, to adore 
that of which we can form no idea. To adore the 
profound views of divine wisdom, is it not to wor- 
ship that of which it is impossible for us to judge? 
To admire these ^ame views, is it not admiring 
without knowing wny? Admiration is always the 
daughter of ignorance. Men admire and worship 
only what they do not understand. 

XLVII. — ALL THE QUALITIES WHICH THEOLOGY 
GIVES TO ITS GOD ARE CONTRARY TO THE 
VERY ESSENCE WHICH IT SUPPOSES HIM TO 
HAVE. 

All these qualities which are given to God are 
not suited to a being who, by His own essence, is 
devoid of all similarity to human beings. It is 
true, they think to find this similarity by exagger- 
ating the human qualities with which they have 
clothed Divinity; they thrust them upon the infi- 
nite, and from that moment cease to understand 
themselves. What is the result of this combination 
of man with God, or of this theanthropy ? Its only 
result is a chimera, of which nothing can be affirmed 
without causing the phantom to vanish which they 
had taken so much trouble to conjure up. 

Dante, in his poem of Paradise, relates that the 
Divinity appeared to him under the figure of three 


j 6 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier . 

circles, which formed an iris, whose bright colors 
arose from each other ; but having wished to retain 
its brilliant light, the poet saw only his own face. 
In worshiping God, man adores himself. 

XLVIII. — CONTINUATION. 

The slightest reflection suffices to prove to us 
that God can not have any of the human qualities, 
virtues, or perfections. Our virtues and our per- 
fections are the results of our temperament modi- 
fied. Has God a temperament like ours? Our 
good qualities are our habits relative to the beings 
in whose society we live. God, according to you, 
is a solitary being. God has no one like Him ; He 
does not live in society ; He has no need of any 
one ; He enjoys a happiness which nothing can 
alter. Admit, then, upon your own principles, that 
God can not possess what we call virtues, and that 
man can not be virtuous in regard to Him. 

XLIX.— IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THE HUMAN 
RACE IS THE OBJECT AND THE END OF CRE- 
ATION. 

Man, charmed with his own merits, imagines that 
it is but his own kind that God proposed as the 
object and the end in the formation of the universe 
Upon what is this so flattering opinion based? It 
is, we are told, upon this : that man is the only 
being endowed with an intelligence which enables 
him to know the Divine nature, and to render to 
it homage worthy of it. We are assured that God 
created the world for His own glory, and that the 


God is not Made for Man , nor Man for God. 77 

human race was included in His plan, in order that 
He might have somebody to admire and glorify 
Him in His works. But by these intentions has 
not God visibly missed His end ? 

1. According to you, it would always be impos- 
sible for man to know his God, and he would be 
kept in the most invincible ignorance of the Divine 
essence. 

2. A being who has no equals, can not be sus- 
ceptible of glory. Glory can result but from the 
comparison of his own excellence with that of 
others. 

3. If God by Himself is infinitely happy and is 
sufficient unto Himself, why does He need the 
homage of His feeble creatures? 

4. In spite of all His works, God is not glorified ; 
on the contrary, all the religions of the world show 
Him to us as perpetually offended ; their great ob- 
ject is to reconcile sinful, ungrateful, and rebellious 
man with his wrathful God. 

L.— GOD IS NOT MADE FOR MAN, NOR MAN FOR 
GOD. 

If God is infinite, He is created still less for man, 
than man is for the ants. Would the ants of a gar- 
den reason pertinently with reference to the gar- 
dener, if they should attempt to occupy themselves 
with his intentions, his desires, and his projects? 
Would they reason correctly if they pretended that 
the park of Versailles was made but for them, and 
that a fastidious monarch had had as his only object 
to lodge them superbly? But according to theol- 


78 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

ogy, man in his relation to God is far beneath what 
the lowest insect is to man. Thus by the ac- 
knowledgment of theology itself, theology, which 
does but occupy itself with the attributes and views 
of Divinity, is the most complete of follies. 

LI.— IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE OBJECT OF THE 
FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE WAS TO REN- 
DER MEN HAPPY. 

It is pretended, that in forming the universe, 
God had no object but to render man happy. But, 
in a world created expressly for him and governed 
by an all-mighty God, is man after all very happy ? 
Are his enjoyments durable? Are not his pleas- 
ures mingled with sufferings ? Are there many 
people who are contented with their fate? Is not 
mankind the continual victim of physical and moral 
evils? This human machine, which is shown to us 
as the masterpiece of the Creator's industry, has it 
not a thousand ways of deranging itself? Would 
we admire the skill of a mechanic, who should 
show us a complicated machine, liable to be out of 
order at any moment, and which would after a 
while destroy itself? 

LII. — WHAT IS CALLED PROVIDENCE IS BUT A 
WORD VOID OF SENSE. 

We call Providence the generous care which Di- 
vinity shows in providing for our needs, and in 
watching over the happiness of its beloved creat- 
ures. But, as soon as we look around, we find 
that God provides for nothing. Providence neg- 


Providence a Word Void of Sense. 


75 


lects the greatest part of the inhabitants of this 
world. Against a very small number of men, who 
are supposed to be happy, what a multitude of 
miserable ones are groaning beneath oppression, 
and languishing in misery! Whole nations are 
compelled to starve in order to indulge the ex- 
travagances of a few morose tyrants, who are no 
happier than the slaves whom they oppress ! At 
the same time that our philosophers energetically 
parade the bounties of Providence, and exhort us 
to place confidence in it, do we not see them cry 
out at unforeseen catastrophes, by which Provi- 
dence plays with the vain projects of men ; do we 
not see that it overthrows their designs, laughs at 
their efforts, and that its profound wisdom pleases 
itself in misleading mortals ? But how can we place 
confidence in a malicious Providence which laughs 
at and sports with mankind ? How can I admire 
the unknown course of a hidden wisdom whose 
manner of acting is inexplicable to me? Judge it 
by its effects ! you will say ; it is by these I do 
judge it, and I find that these effects are sometimes 
useful and sometimes injurious to me. 

We think to justify Providence by saying, that 
in this world there are more blessings than evil for 
each individual man. Let us suppose that the 
blessings which this Providence makes us enjoy 
are as one hundred, and that the evils are as ten 
per cent. ; would it not always result that against 
these hundred degrees of goodness, Providence 
possesses a tenth degree of malignity? — which is 
incompatible with the perfection we suppose it to 
have. 


80 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

All the books are filled with the most flattering 
praises of Providence, whose attentive care is ex- 
tolled ; it would seem to us, as if in order to live 
happy here below, man would have no need of ex- 
erting himself. However, without labor, man could 
scarcely live a day. In order to live, I see him 
obliged to sweat, work, hunt, fish, toil without re- 
laxation ; without these secondary causes, the First 
Cause (at least in the majority of countries) could 
provide for none of his needs. If I examine all 
parts of this globe, I see the uncivilized as well as 
the civilized man in a perpetual struggle with 
Providence ; he is compelled to ward off the blows 
which it sends in the form of hurricanes, tempests, 
frost, hail, inundations, sterility, and the divers 
accidents which so often render all their labors 
useless. In a word, I see the human race contin- 
ually occupied in protecting itself from the wicked 
tricks of this Providence, which is said to be busy 
with the care of their happiness. A devotee ad- 
mired Divine Providence for having wisely made 
rivers to flow through all the places where men 
had built large cities. Is not this man’s way of 
reasoning as sensible as that of many learned men 
who do not cease from telling us of Final Causes, or 
who pretend to perceive clearly the benevolent 
views of God in the formation of things ? 

LIII.— THIS PRETENDED PROVIDENCE IS LESS OC- 
CUPIED IN CONSERVING THAN IN DISTURB- 
ING THE WORLD— MORE AN ENEMY THAN A 
FRIEND OF MAN. 

Do we see, then, that Divine Providence mani- 


Providence . More an Enemy than a Friend . 8 1 

Tests itself in a sensible manner in the conservation 
of its admirable works, for which we honor it ? If 
it is Divine Providence which governs the world, 
we find it as much occupied in destroying as in 
creating ; in exterminating as in producing. Does 
it not at every instant cause thousands of those 
same men to perish, to whose preservation and 
well-being it is supposed to give its continual atten- 
tion ? Every moment it loses sight of its beloved 
creatures ; sometimes it tears down their dwellings ; 
sometimes it destroys their harvests, inundates 
their fields, devastates by a drouth, arms all nature 
against man, sets man against man, and finishes by 
causing him to expire in pain. Is this what you 
call preserving a universe? If we attempted to 
consider without prejudice the equivocal conduct of 
Providence relative to mankind and to all sentient 
beings, we should find that very far from resem- 
bling a tender and careful mother, it rather resem- 
bles those unnatural mothers who, forgetting the 
unfortunate fruits of their illicit amours, abandon 
their children as soon as they are born ; and who, 
pleased to have conceived them, expose them with- 
out mercy to the caprices of fate. 

The Hottentots — wiser in this particular than 
other nations, who treat them as barbarians — refuse, 
it is said, to adore God, because if He sometimes 
does good, He as often does harm. Is not this 
reasoning more just and more conformed to expe- 
rience than that of so many men who persist in 
seeing in their God but kindness, wisdom, and fore- 
sight ; and who refuse to see that the countless 


82 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

evils, of which the world is the theater, must 
come from the same Hand which they kiss with 
transport ? 

LIV. — NO ! THE WORLD IS NOT GOVERNED BY AN 
INTELLIGENT BEING. 

The logic of common sense teaches us that we 
should judge a cause but by its effects. A cause 
can not be reputed as constantly good, except when 
it constantly produces good, useful, and agreeable 
effects. A cause which produces good at one time, 
and evil at another, is a cause which is sometimes 
good and sometimes bad. But the logic of Theol- 
ogy destroys all this. According to it, the phenom- 
ena of nature, or the effects which we see in this 
world, prove to us the existence of an infinitely 
good Cause, and this Cause is God. Although this 
world is full of evils, although disorder reigns here 
very often, although men groan every moment 
under the fate which oppresses them, we ought to 
be convinced that these effects are due to a benev- 
olent and immutable Cause ; and many people be- 
lieve it, or pretend to believe it ! 

Everything which takes place in the world proves 
to us in the clearest way that it is not governed 
by an intelligent being. We can judge of the in- 
telligence of a being but by the means which he 
employs to accomplish his proposed design. The 
aim of God, it is said, is the happiness of our race ; 
however, the same necessity regulates the fate of 
all sentient beings — which are born to suffer much, 
to enjoy little, and to die. Man’s cup is full of joy 


God cannot be called Immutable. 83 

and of bitterness ; everywhere good is side by side 
with evil; order is replaced by disorder; genera- 
tion is followed by destruction. If you tell me that 
the designs of God are mysteries, and that His 
views are impossible to understand, I will answer, 
that in this case it is impossible for me to judge 
whether God is intelligent. 

LV. — GOD CAN NOT BE CALLED IMMUTABLE. 

You pretend that God is immutable! But what 
is it that occasions the continual instability in this 
world, which you claim as His empire? Is any 
state subject to more frequent and cruel revolutions 
than that of this unknown monarch ? How can we 
attribute to an immutable God, powerful enough 
to give solidity to His works, the government of a 
world where everything is in a continual vicissi- 
tude? If I think to see a God unchanging in all 
the effects advantageous to my kind, what God can 
I discover in the continual misfortunes by which 
my kind is oppressed? You tell me that it is our 
sins that force Him to punish us. I will answer 
that God, according to yourselves, is not immuta- 
ble, because the sins of men compel Him to change 
His conduct in regard to them. Can a being who 
is sometimes irritated, and sometimes appeased, be 
constantly the same ? 

LVI. — EVIL AND GOOD ARE THE NECESSARY EF- 
FECTS OF NATURAL CAUSES. WHAT IS A GOD 
WHO CAN CHANGE NOTHING? 

The universe is but what it can be ; all sentient 


84 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

beings enjoy and suffer here : that is to say, they 
are moved sometimes in an agreeable, and at other 
times in a disagreeable way. These effects are 
necessary ; they result from causes that act accord- 
ing to their inherent tendencies. These effects 
necessarily please or displease me, according to my 
own nature. This same nature compels me to 
avoid, to remove, and to combat the one, and to 
seek, to desire, and to procure the other. In a 
world where everything is from necessity, a God 
who remedies nothing, and allows things to follow 
their own course, is He anything else but destiny 
or necessity personified ? It is a deaf God who can 
effect no change on the general laws to which He 
is subjected Himself. What do I care for the infi- 
nite power of a being who can do but a very few 
things to please me ? Where is the infinite kind- 
ness of a being who is indifferent to my happiness? 
What good to me is the favor of a being who, able 
to bestow upon me infinite good, does not even 
give me a finite one? 

LVII. — THE VANITY OF THEOLOGICAL CONSOLA- 
TIONS IN THE TROUBLES OF THIS LIFE 
THE HOPE OF A HEAVEN, OF A FUTURE 
LIFE, IS BUT IMAGINARY. 

When we ask why, under a good God, so many 
are wretched, we are reminded that the present 
world is but a pass-way, designed to conduct man 
to a happier sphere ; we are assured that our so- 
journ on the earth, where we live, is for trial ; they 
silence us by saying that God would not impart to 


Vanity of Theological Consolations. 85 

His creatures either the indifference to the suffer- 
ings of others, or the infinite happiness which He 
reserved for Himself alone. How can we be satis- 
fied with these answers ? 

1. The existence of another life has no other 
guaranty than the imagination of men, who, in 
supposing it, have but manifested their desire to 
live again, in order to enter upon a purer and more 
durable state of happiness than that which they 
enjoy at present. 

2. How can we conceive of a God who, knowing 
all things, must know to their depths the nature 
of His creatures, and yet must have so many 
proofs in order to assure Himself of their proclivi- 
ties ? 

3. According to the calculations of our chronol- 
ogists, the earth which we inhabit has existed for 
six or seven thousand years ; during this time the 
nations have, under different forms, experienced 
many vicissitudes and calamities ; history shows 
us that the human race in all ages has been tor- 
mented and devastated by tyrants, conquerors, he- 
roes ; by wars, inundations, famines, epidemics, etc. 
Is this long catalogue of proofs of such a nature as 
to inspire us with great confidence in the hidden 
views of the Divinity ? Do such constant evils give 
us an exalted idea of the future fate which His 
kindness is preparing for us ? 

4. If God is as well-disposed as they assure us 
He is, could He not at least, without bestowing an 
infinite happiness upon men, communicate to them 
that degree of happiness of which finite beings are 


86 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

susceptible ? In order to be happy, do we need an 
Infinite or Divine happiness? 

5. If God has not been able to render men hap- 
pier than they are here belo w, what will become of 
the hope of a Paradise, where it is pretended that 
the elect or chosen few will rejoice forever in ineffable 
happiness? If God could not or would not remove 
evil from the earth (the only sojourning place we 
know of), what reason could we have to presume 
that He can or will remove it from another world, 
of which we know nothing ? More than two thou- 
sand years ago, according to Lactance, the wise 
epicure said : “ Either God wants to prevent evil, 
and can not, or He can and will not ; or He 
neither can nor will, or He will and can. If He 
wants to, without the power, He is impotent : if 
He can, and will not, He is guilty of malice which 
we can not attribute to Him : if He neither can nor 
will, He is both impotent and wicked, and conse- 
quently can not be God ; if He wishes to and can, 
whence then comes evil, or why does He not pre- 
vent it?” For more than two thousand years hon- 
est minds have waited for a rational solution of 
these difficulties ; and our theologians teach us that 
they will not be revealed to us until the future life. 

LVIII.— ANOTHER IDLE FANCY. 

We are told of a pretended scale for human be- 
ings ; it is supposed that God has divided His creat- 
ures into different classes, each one enjoying the 
degree of happiness of which he is susceptible. 
According to this romantic arrangement, all beings, 


God is More Wicked than Good. 87 

from the oyster to the angel, enjoy the happiness 
which belongs to them. Experience contradicts 
this sublime revery. In the world where we are, 
we see all sentient beings living and suffering in 
the midst of dangers. Man can not step without 
wounding, tormenting; crushing a multitude of 
sentient beings which he finds in his path, while he 
himself, at every step, is exposed to a throng of 
evils seen or unseen, which may lead to his de- 
struction. Is not the very thought of death suffi- 
cient to mar his greatest enjoyment? During the 
whole course of his life he is subject to sufferings ; 
there is not a moment when he feels sure of preserv- 
ing his existence, to which he is so strongly at- 
tached, and which he regards as the greatest gift 
of Divinity. 

LIX. — IN VAIN DOES THEOLOGY EXERT ITSELF 
TO ACQUIT GOD OF MAN’S DEFECTS. EITHER 
THIS GOD IS NOT FREE, OR HE IS MORE 
WICKED THAN GOOD. 

The world, it will be said, has all the perfection 
of which it was susceptible ; by the very reason 
that the world was not the God who made it, it 
was necessary that it should have great qualities 
and great defects. But we will answer, that the world 
necessarily having great defects, it would have been 
better suited to the nature of a good God not to 
create a world which He could not render com- 
pletely happy. If God, who was, according to 
you, supremely happy before the world was cre- 
ated, had continued to be supremely happy in the 


88 Common Sense , by Jean Meslter. 

created world, why did He not remain in peace? 
Why must man suffer ? Why must man exist ? 
What is his existence to God ? Nothing or some- 
thing. If his existence is not useful or necessary to 
God, why did He not leave him in nothingness? 
If man’s existence is necessary to His glory, He 
then needed man, He lacked something before this 
man existed ! 

We can forgive an unskillful workman for doing 
imperfect work, because he must work, well or ill, 
or starve ; this workman is excusable ; but your God 
is not. According to you, He is self-sufficient ; in 
this case, why does He create men? He has, ac- 
cording to you, all that is necessary to render man 
happy; why, then, does He not do it? You must 
conclude that your God has more malice than 
goodness, or you must admit that God was com- 
pelled to do what He has done, without being able 
to do otherwise. However, you assure us that your 
God is free ; you say also that He is immutable, al- 
though beginning in time and ceasing in time to 
exercise His power, like all the inconstant beings 
of this world. Oh, theologians! you have made 
vain efforts to acquit your God of all the defects of 
man ; there is always visible in this God so perfect, 
“ a tip of the \Jiuman\ ear!' 

LX.— WE CAN NOT BELIEVE IN A DIVINE PROVL 
DENCE, IN AN INFINITELY GOOD AND POW- 
ERFUL GOD. 

Is not God the master of His favors? Has He 
not the right to dispense His benefits? Can He 


We can not Believe in Providence . 89 

not take them back again? His creature has no 
right to ask the reason of His conduct ; He can dis- 
pose at will of the works of His hands. Absolute 
sovereign of mortals, He distributes happiness or 
unhappiness, according to His pleasure. These are 
the solutions which theologians give in order to 
console us for the evils which God inflicts upon us. 
We would tell them that a God who was infinitely 
good, would not be the master of His favors, but 
would be by His own nature obliged to distribute 
them among His creatures ; we would tell them 
that a truly benevolent being would not believe he 
had the right to abstain from doing good; we 
would tell them that a truly generous being does 
not take back what he has given, and any man who 
does it, forfeits gratitude, and has no right to com- 
plain of ingratitude. How can the arbitrary and 
whimsical conduct which theologians ascribe to 
God, be reconciled with the religion which sup- 
poses a compact or mutual agreement between this 
God and men ? If God owes nothing to His creat- 
ures, they, on their part, can not owe anything to 
their God. All religion is founded upon the hap- 
piness which men believe they have a right to ex- 
pect from the Divinity, who is supposed to tell 
them : “ Love, adore, obey me, and I will render 
you happy ! ” Men on their side say to Him : 
“ Make us happy, be faithful to your promises, and 
we will love you, we will adore you, we will obey 
your laws!” In neglecting the happiness of His 
creatures, in distributing His favors and His graces 
according to His caprice, and taking back His gifts, 


90 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

does not God violate the contract which serves as a 
base for all religion ? 

Cicero has said with reason that if God does not 
make Himself agreeable to man, He can not be his 
God.* Goodness constitutes Divinity ; this Good- 
ness can manifest itself to man only by the advan- 
tages he derives from it. As soon as he is unfortu- 
nate, this Goodness disappears and ceases to be 
Divinity. An infinite Goodness can be neither par- 
tial nor exclusive. If God is infinitely good, He 
owes happiness to all His creatures ; one unfortu- 
nate being alone would be sufficient to annihilate 
an unlimited goodness. Under an infinitely good 
and powerful God, is it possible to conceive that 
a single man could suffer? An animal, a mite, 
which suffers, furnishes invincible arguments against 
Divine Providence and its infinite benefactions. 

LX I. — CONTINUATION. 

According to theologians, the afflictions and 
evils of this life are chastisements which culpable 
men receive from Divinity. But why are men cul- 
pable? If God is Almighty, does it cost Him any 
more to say, “ Let everything remain in order ! ” — 
let all my subjects be good, innocent, fortunate ! — 
than to say, “ Let everything exist ? ” Was it more 
difficult for this God to do His work well than to 
do it so badly? Was it any farther from the non- 
existence of beings to their wise and happy exist- 
ence, than from their non-existence to their insen- 


* Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus non erit. 


Theology makes God a Monster. 91 

sate and miserable existence ? Religion speaks to 
us of a hell — that is, of a fearful place where, not- 
withstanding His goodness, God reserves eternal 
torments for the majority of men. Thus, after hav- 
ing rendered mortals very miserable in this world, 
religion teaches them that God can make them 
much more wretched in another. They meet our 
objections by saying, that otherwise the goodness 
of God would take the place of His justice. But 
goodness which takes the place of the most terrible 
cruelty, is not infinite kindness. Besides, a God 
who, after having been infinitely good, becomes in- 
finitely wicked, can He be regarded as an immuta- 
ble being? A God filled with implacable fury, is 
He a God in whom we can find a shadow of charity 
or goodness ? 

LXII. — THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD A MONSTER 
OF NONSENSE, OF INJUSTICE, OF MALICE, AND 
ATROCITY — A BEING ABSOLUTELY HATEFUL. 

Divine justice, such as our theologians paint it, 
is, without doubt, a quality intended to make us 
love Divinity. According to the notions of modern 
theology, it appears evident that God has created 
the majority of men with the view only of punish- 
ing them eternally. Would it not have been more 
in conformity with kindness, with reason, with 
equity, to create but stones or plants, and not sen- 
tient beings, than to create men whose conduct in 
this world would cause them eternal chastisements 
in another? A God so perfidious and wicked as to 
create a single man and leave him exposed to the 


92 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

perils of damnation, can not be regarded as a per- 
fect being, but as a monster of nonsense, injustice, 
malice, and atrocity. Far from forming a perfect 
God, the theologians have made the most imperfect 
of beings. According to theological ideas, God 
resembles a tyrant who, having deprived the major 
ity of his slaves of their eyesight, would confine 
them in a cell where, in order to amuse himself 
he could observe incognito their conduct through 
a trap-door, in order to have occasion to cruelly 
punish all those who in walking should hurt each 
other ; but who would reward splendidly the small 
number of those to whom the sight was spared, for 
having the skill to avoid an encounter with their 
comrades. Such are the ideas which the dogma of 
gratuitous predestination gives of Divinity ! 

Although men repeat to us that their God is in- 
finitely good, it is evident that in the bottom of 
their hearts they can believe nothing of it. How 
can we love anything we do not know? How can 
we love a being, the idea of whom is but liable to 
keep us in anxiety and trouble? How can we love 
a being of whom all that is told conspires to render 
him supremely hateful ? 

LXIII. — ALL RELIGION INSPIRES BUT A COWARD- 
LY AND INORDINATE FEAR OF THE DIVINITY. 

Many people make a subtle distinction between 
true religion and superstition ; they tell us that the 
latter is but a cowardly and inordinate fear of Di- 
vinity, that the truly religious man has confidence 
in his God, and loves Him sincerely ; while the su- 


To Love God is Impossible. 


93 


perstitious man sees in Him but an enemy, has no 
confidence in Him, and represents Him as a suspi- 
cious and cruel tyrant, avaricious of His benefac- 
tions and prodigal of His chastisements. But does 
not all religion in reality give us these same ideas 
of God ? While we are told that God is infinitely 
good, is it not constantly repeated to us that He is 
very easily offended, that He bestows His favors 
but upon a few, that He chastises with fury those 
to whom He has not been pleased to grant them ? 

LXIV. — THERE IS IN REALITY NO DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE MOST SOMBRE 
AND SERVILE SUPERSTITION. 

If we take our ideas of God from the nature of 
the things where we find a Inixture of good and evil, 
this God, according to the good and evil which we 
experience, does naturally appear to us capricious, 
inconstant, sometimes good, sometimes wicked, and 
in this way, instead of exciting our love, He must 
produce suspicion, fear, and uncertainty in our 
hearts. There is no real difference between natu- 
ral religion and the most sombre and servile super- 
stition. If the Theist sees God but on the beautiful 
side, the superstitious man looks upon Him from 
the most hideous side. The folly of the one is gay 
of the other is lugubrious; but both are equally 
delirious. 

LXV.— ACCORDING TO THE IDEAS WHICH THEOL- 
OGY GIVES OF DIVINITY, TO LOVE GOD IS 
IMPOSSIBLE. 

If I take my ideas of God from theology, God 


94 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

shows Himself to me in such a light as to repel 
love. The devotees who tell us that they love their 
God sincerely, are either liars or fools who see their 
God but in profile ; it is impossible to love a being, 
the thought of whom tends to excite terror, and 
whose judgments make us tremble. How can we 
face without fear, a God whom we suppose suffi- 
ciently barbarous to wish to damn us forever? 
Let them not speak to us of a filial or respectful 
fear mingled with love, which men should have for 
their God. A son can not love his father when he 
knows he is cruel enough to inflict exquisite tor- 
ments upon him ; in short, to punish him for the 
least faults. No man upon earth can have the 
least spark of love for a God who holds in reserve 
eternal, hard, and violent chastisements for ninety- 
nine hundredths of His children. 

LXVI.— BY THE INVENTION OF THE DOGMA OF THE 
ETERNAL TORMENTS OF HELL, THEOLOGIANS 
HAVE MADE OF THEIR GOD A DETESTABLE 
BEING, MORE WICKED THAN THE MOST WICK- 
ED OF MEN, A PERVERSE AND CRUEL TYRANT 
WITHOUT AIM. 

The inventors of the dogma of eternal torments in 
hell, have made of the God whom they call so good, 
the most detestable of beings. Cruelty in man is the 
last term of corruption. There is no sensitive soul 
but is moved and revolts at the recital alone of the 
torments which the greatest criminal endures ; but 
cruelty merits the greater indignation when we 
consider it gratuitous or without motive. The 


God made More Wicked than Men. 95 

most sanguinary tyrants, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, 
had at least some motive in tormenting their vic- 
tims and insulting their sufferings ; these motives 
were, either their own safety, the fury of revenge, 
the design to frighten by terrible examples, or per- 
haps the vanity to make parade of their power, and 
the desire to satisfy a barbarous curiosity. Can a 
God have any of these motives? In tormenting 
the victims of His wrath, He would punish beings 
who could not really endanger His immovable 
power, nor trouble His felicity, which nothing can 
change. On the other hand, the sufferings of the 
other life would be useless to the living, who can 
not witness them ; these torments would be useless 
to the damned, because in hell is no more conver- 
sion, and the hour of mercy is passed : from which 
it follows, that God, in the exercise of His eternal 
vengeance, would have no other aim than to 
amuse Himself and insult the weakness of His 
creatures. I appeal to the whole human race ! Is 
there in nature a man so cruel as to wish in cold 
blood to torment, I do not say his fellow-beings, but 
any sentient being whatever, without fee, without 
profit, without curiosity, without having anything to 
fear? Conclude, then, O theologians ! that acord- 
ing to your own principles, your God is infinitely 
more wicked than the most wicked of men. You 
will tell me, perhaps, that infinite offenses deserve 
infinite chastisements, and I will tell you that we 
can not offend a God whose happiness is infinite. 
I will tell you further, that offenses of finite beings 
can not be infinite ; that a God who does not want 


g 6 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

to be offended, can not consent to make His creat- 
ures* offenses last for eternity ; I will tell you that 
a God infinitely good, can not be infinitely cruel, 
nor grant His creatures infinite existence solely for 
the pleasure of tormenting them forever. 

It could have been but the most cruel barbarity, 
the most notorious imposition, but the blindest am- 
bition which could have created the dogma of eter- 
nal damnation. If there exists a God who could 
be offended or blasphemed, there would not be upon 
earth any greater blasphemers than those who dare 
to say that this God is perverse enough to take 
pleasure in dooming His feeble creatures to useless 
torments for all eternity. 

LXVII.— THEOLOGY IS BUT A SERIES OF PALPABLE 
CONTRADICTIONS. 

To pretend that God can be offended with the 
actions of men, is to annihilate all the ideas that 
are given to us of this being. To say that man 
can disturb the order of the universe, that he can 
grasp the lightning from God’s hand, that he can 
upset His projects, is to claim that man is stronger 
than his God, that he is the arbiter of His will, 
that it depends on him to change His goodness in- 
to cruelty. Theology does nothing but destroy 
with one hand that which it builds with the other. 
If all religion is founded upon a God who becomes 
angry, and who is appeased, all religion is founded 
upon a palpable contradiction. 

All religions agree in exalting the wisdom and 
the infinite power of the Divinity ; but as soon as 


The Pretended Works of God. 


97 


they expose His conduct, we discover but impru- 
dence, want of foresight, weakness, and folly. God, 
it is said, created the world for Himself ; and so far 
He has not succeeded in making Himself properly 
respected ! God has created men in order to have 
in His dominion subjects who would render Him 
homage ; and we continually see men revolt against 
Him! 

LXVIII. — THE PRETENDED WORKS OF GOD DO NOT 
PROVE AT ALL WHAT WE CALL DIVINE PER- 
FECTION. 

We are continually told of the Divine perfec- 
tions ; and as soon as we ask the proofs of them, we 
are shown the works in which we are assured that 
these perfections are written in ineffaceable charac- 
ters. All these works, however, are imperfect and 
perishable; man, who is regarded as the master- 
piece, as the most marvelous work of Divinity, is 
full of imperfections which render him disagreeable 
in the eyes of the Almighty workman who has 
formed him ; this surprising work becomes often 
so revolting and so odious to its Author, that He feels 
Himself compelled to cast him into the fire. But if 
the choicest work of Divinity is imperfect, by what 
are we to judge of the Divine perfections? Can a 
work with which the author himself is so little sat- 
isfied, cause us to admire his skill ? Physical man 
is subject to a thousand infirmities, to countless 
evils, to death ; the moral man is full of defects ; 
and yet they exhaust themselves by telling us that 


98 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

he is the most beautiful work of the most perfect 
of beings. 

LXIX. — THE PERFECTION OF GOD DOES NOT SHOW 
TO ANY MORE ADVANTAGE IN THE PRETENDED 
CREATION OF ANGELS AND PURE SPIRITS. 

It appears that God, in creating more perfect be- 
ings than men, did not succeed any better, or give 
stronger proofs of His perfection. Do we not see 
in many religions that angels and pure spirits re- 
volted against their Master, and even attempted to 
expel Him from His throne ? God intended the 
happiness of angels and of men, and He has never 
succeeded in rendering happy either angels or men ; 
pride, malice, sins, the imperfections of His creat- 
ures, have always been opposed to the wishes of 
the perfect Creator. 

LXX. — THEOLOGY PREACHES THE OMNIPOTENCE 
OF ITS GOD, AND CONTINUALLY SHOWS HIM 
IMPOTENT. 

All religion is visibly founded upon the principle 
that “ God proposes and man disposes.” All the 
theologies of the world show us an unequal combat 
between Divinity on the one side, and His creat- 
ures on the other. God never relies on His honor ; 
in spite of His almighty power, He could not suc- 
ceed in making the worxs of His hands as He would 
like them to be. To complete the absurdity, there 
is a religion which pretends that God Himself died 
to redeem the human race; and, in spite of His 


God the Most Insensate of Beings . 99 

death, men are not in the least as this God would 
desire them to be ! 

LXXI. — ACCORDING TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS SYS- 
TEMS OF THE EARTH, GOD WOULD BE THE 
MOST CAPRICIOUS AND THE MOST INSENSATE 
OF BEINGS. 

Nothing could be more extravagant than the 
role which in every country theology makes Divin- 
ity play. If the thing was real, we would be 
obliged to see in it the most capricious and the 
most insane of beings; one would be obliged to 
believe that God made the world to be the theater 
of dishonoring wars with His creatures; that He 
created angels, men, demons, wicked spirits, but as 
adversaries, against whom He could exercise His 
power. He gives them liberty to offend Him, 
makes them wicked enough to upset His projects, 
obstinate enough to never give up : all for the 
pleasure of getting angry, and being appeased, of 
reconciling Himself, and of repairing the confusion 
they have made. Had Divinity foimed at once 
His creatures such as they ought to be in order to 
please Him, what trouble He might have spared 
Himself! or, at least, how much embarrassment 
He might have saved to His theologians ! Ac- 
cording to all the religious systems of the earth, 
God seems to be occupied but in doing Himself 
injury ; He does it as those charlatans do who 
wound themselves, in order to have occasion to 
show the public the value of their ointments. We 
do not see, however, that so far Divinity has been 


roo Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

able to radically cure itself of the evil which is 
caused by men. 

LXXII. — IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT EVIL DOES 
NOT COME FROM GOD. 

God is the author of all ; still we are assured 
that evil does not come from God. Whence, then, 
does it come ? From men ? But who has made 
men ? It is God : then that evil comes from God. 
If He had not made men as they are, moral evil 
or sin would not exist in the world. We must 
blame God, then, that man is so perverse. If man 
has the power to do wrong or to offend God, we 
must conclude that God wishes to be offended ; 
that God, who has created man, resolved that evil 
should be done by him : without this, man would 
be an effect contrary to the cause from which he 
derives his being. 

LXXIII. — THE FORESIGHT ATTRIBUTED TO GOD, 
WOULD GIVE TO GUILTY MEN WHOM HE 
PUNISHES, THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF HIS 
CRUELTY. 

The faculty of foresight, or the ability to know 
in advance all which is to happen in the world, is 
attributed to God. But this foresight can scarcely 
belong to His glory, nor spare Him the reproaches 
which men could legitimately heap upon Him. If 
God had the foresight of the future, did He not 
foresee the fall of His creatures whom He had 
destined to happiness? If He resolved in His 
decrees to allow this fall, there is no doubt that 


Absurdity of Theological Fables . IOJ 

He desired it to take place : otherwise it would not 
have happened. If the Divine foresight of the sin 
of His creatures had been necessary or forced, it 
might be supposed that God was compelled by His 
justice to punish the guilty ; but God, enjoying 
the faculty of foresight and the power to predesti- 
nate everything, would it not depend upon Him- 
self not to impose upon men these cruel laws ? 
Or, at least, could He not have dispensed with cre- 
ating beings whom He might be compelled to pun- 
ish and to render unhappy by a subsequent decree? 
What does it matter whether God destined men to 
happiness or to misery by a previous decree, the 
effect of His foresight, or by a subsequent decree, 
the effect of His justice. Does the arrangement 
of these decrees change the fate of the miserable ? 
Would they not have the right to complain of a 
God who, having the power of leaving them in 
oblivion, brought them forth, although He foresaw 
very well that His justice would force Him sooner 
or later to punish them ? 

LXXIV.— ABSURDITY OF THE THEOLOGICAL FA- 
BLES UPON ORIGINAL SIN AND UPON SATAN. 

Man, say you, issuing from the hands of God, 
was pure, innocent, and good ; but his nature be- 
came corrupted in consequence of sin. If man 
could sin, when just leaving the hands of God, his 
nature was then not perfect ! Why did God per- 
mit him to sin, and his nature to become corrupt ? 
Why did God allow him to be seduced, knowing 
well that he would be too weak to resist the tempt- 


102 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

er? Why did God create a Satan, a malicious 
spirit, a tempter ? Why did not God, who was so 
desirous of doing good to mankind, why did He not 
annihilate, once for all, so many evil genii whose 
nature rendered them enemies of our happiness? 
Or rather, why did God create evil spirits, whose 
victories and terrible influences upon the human 
race He must have foreseen ? Finally, by what 
fatality, in all the religions of the world, has the 
evil principle such a marked advantage over the 
good principle or over Divinity ? 

LXXV. — THE DEVIL, LIKE RELIGION, WAS IN- 
VENTED TO ENRICH THE PRIESTS. 

We are told a story of the simple-heartedness of 
an Italian monk, which does him honor. This good 
man preaching one day felt obliged to announce to 
his auditory that, thanks to Heaven, he had at last 
discovered a sure means of rendering all men happy. 
“The devil/' said he, “ tempts men but to have 
them as comrades of his misery in hell. Let us 
address ourselves, then, to the Pope, who possesses 
the keys of paradise and of hell ; let us ask him to 
beseech God, at the head of the whole Church, to 
reconcile Himself with the devil; to take him back 
into His favor; to re-establish him in His first rank. 
This can not fail to put an end to his sinister proj- 
ects against mankind.” The good monk did not 
see, perhaps, that the devil is at least fully as useful 
as God to the ministers of religion. These reap too 
many benefits from their differences to lend them- 
selves willingly to a reconciliation between the two 


God has no Right to Punish Man . 103 

enenies, upon whose contests their existence and 
their revenues depend. If men would cease to be 
tempted and to sin, the ministry of priests would 
become useless to them. Manicheism is evidently 
the support of all religions ; but unfortunately the 
devil, being invented to remove all suspicion of 
malice from Divinity, proves to us at every mo- 
ment the powerlessness or the awkwardness of his 
celestial Adversary. 

LXXVI. — IF GOD COULD NOT RENDER HUMAN NAT- 
URE SINLESS, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO PUNISH 
MAN. 

Man’s nature, it is said, must necessarily become 
corrupt. God could not endow him with sinless- 
ness, which is an inalienable portion of Divine per- 
fection. But if God could not render him sinless, 
why did He take the trouble of creating man, whose 
nature was to become corrupt, and which, conse- 
quently, had to offend God ? On the other side, if 
God Himself was not able to render human nature 
sinless, what right had He to punish men for not 
being sinless? It is but by the right of might. But 
the right of the strongest is violence ; and violence 
is not suited to the most Just of Beings. God would 
be supremely unjust if He punished men for not 
having a portion of the Divine perfections, or for 
not being able to be Gods like Himself. 

Could not God have at least endowed men with 
that sort of perfection of which their nature is sus- 
ceptible ? If some men are good or render them- 
selves agreeable to their God, why did not this 


104 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

God bestow the same favor or give the same dispo- 
sitions to all beings of our kind ? Why does the 
number of wicked exceed so greatly the number of 
good people? Why, for every friend, does God 
find ten thousand enemies in a world which de- 
pended upon Him alone to people with honest 
men ? If it is true that God intends to form in 
heaven a court of saints, of chosen ones, or of men 
who have lived in this world according to His views, 
would He not have had a court more numerous, 
more brilliant, and more honorable to Him, if it 
were composed of all the men to whom, in creating 
them, He could have granted the degree of good- 
ness necessary to obtain eternal happiness ? Finally, 
were it not easier not to take man from nothing- 
ness than to create him full of defects, rebellious 
to his Creator, perpetually exposed to lose himself 
by a fatal abuse of his liberty ? Instead of creating 
men, a perfect God ought to have created only do- 
cile and submissive angels. The angels, it is said, 
are free ; a few among them have sinned ; but all 
of them have not sinned ; all have not abused their 
liberty by revolting against their Master. Could 
not God have created only angels of the good kind ? 
If God could create angels who have not sinned, 
could He not create men sinless, or those who 
would never abuse their liberty by doing evil. If 
the chosen ones are incapable of sinning in heaven, 
could not God have made sinless men upon the 
earth ? 


The Mystery of God's Conduct. 


105 


LXXVII. — IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT GOD’S CON- 
DUCT MUST BE A MYSTERY TO MAN, AND 
THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND 
JUDGE IT. 

We are told that the enormous distance which 
separates God from men, makes God’s conduct 
necessarily a mystery for us, and that we have no 
right to interrogate our Master. Is this statement 
satisfactory ? But according to you, when my eter- 
nal happiness is involved, have I not the right to 
examine God’s own conduct ? It is but with the 
hope of happiness that men submit to the empire 
of a God. A despot to whom men are subjected 
but through fear, a master whom they can not in- 
terrogate, a totally inaccessible sovereign, can not 
merit the homage of intelligent beings. If God’s 
conduct is a mystery to me, it is not made for me. 
Man can not adore, admire, respect, or imitate a 
conduct of which everything is impossible to con- 
ceive, or of which he can not form any but revolt- 
ing ideas; unless it is pretended that he should 
worship all the things of which he is forced to be 
ignorant, and then all that he does not understand 
becomes admirable. 

Priests ! you teach us that the designs of God 
are impenetrable; that His ways are not our ways; 
that His thoughts are not our thoughts ; that it is 
folly to complain of His administration, whose mo- 
tives and secret ways are entirely unknown to us ; 
that there is temerity in accusing Him of unjust 
judgments, because they are incomprehensible to 
us. But do you not see that by speaking in this 


io 6 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

manner, you destroy with your own hands all youi 
profound systems which have no design but to ex- 
plain the ways of Divinity that you call impenetra- 
ble ? These judgments, these ways, and these de- 
signs, have you penetrated them? You dare not 
say so ; and, although you leason incessantly, you 
do not understand them more than we do. If by 
chance you know the plan of God, which you tell 
us to admire, while there are many people who find 
it so little worthy of a just, good, intelligent, and 
rational being ; do not say that this plan is impene- 
trable. If you are as ignorant as we, have some 
indulgence for those who ingenuously confess that 
they comprehend nothing of it, or that they see 
nothing in it Divine. Cease to persecute for opin- 
ions which you do not understand yourselves; cease 
to slander each other for dreams and conjectures 
which are altogether contradictory ; speak to us of 
intelligible and truly useful things ; and no longer 
tell us of the impenetrable ways of a God, about 
which you do nothing but stammer and contradict 
yourselves. 

In speaking to us incessantly of the immense 
depths of Divine wisdom, in forbidding us to fathom 
these depths by telling us that it is insolence to call 
God to the tribunal of our humble reason, in making 
it a crime to judge our Master, the theologians only 
confess the embarrassment in which they find them- 
selves as soon as they have to render account of 
the conduct of a God, which they tell us is marvel- 
ous, only because it is totally impossible for them 
to understand it themselves. 


God the Author of Our Misfortunes. 107 

LXXVIII. — IT IS ABSURD TO CALL HIM A GOD OF 
JUSTICE AND GOODNESS, WHO INFLICTS EVIL 
INDISCRIMINATELY ON THE GOOD AND THE 
WICKED, UPON THE INNOCENT AND THE 
GUILTY ; IT IS IDLE TO DEMAND THAT THE 
UNFORTUNATE SHOULD CONSOLE THEMSELVES 
FOR THEIR MISFORTUNES, IN THE VERY ARMS 
OF THE ONE WHO ALONE IS THE AUTHOR 
OF THEM. 

Physical evil commonly passes as the punishment 
of sin. Calamities, diseases, famines, wars, earth- 
quakes, are the means which God employs to chas- 
tise perverse men. Therefore, they have no diffi- 
culty in attributing these evils to the severity of a 
just and good God. However, do we not see these 
plagues fall indiscriminately upon the good and the 
wicked, upon the impious and the pious, upon the 
innocent and the guilty? How can we be made to 
admire, in this proceeding, the justice and the good- 
ness of a being, the idea of whom appears so con- 
soling to the unfortunate ? Doubtless the brain 
of these unfortunate ones has been disturbed by 
their misfortunes, since they forget that God is the 
arbiter of things, the sole dispenser of the events 
of this world. In this case ought they not to 
blame Him for the evils for which they would find 
consolation in His arms? Unfortunate father! 
you console yourself in the bosom of Providence 
for the loss of a cherished child or of a wife, 
who made your happiness ! Alas ! do you not 
see that your God has killed them ? Your God 
has rendered you miserable ; and you want Him 


io8 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

to console you for the fearful . blows He has in- 
flicted upon you. 

The fantastic and supernatural notions of theol- 
ogy have succeeded so thoroughly in overcoming 
the simplest, the clearest, the most natural ideas 
of the human spirit, that the pious, incapable of 
accusing God of malice, accustom themselves to 
look upon these sad afflictions as indubitable proofs 
of celestial goodness. Are they in affliction, they 
are told to believe that God loves them, that God 
visits them, that God wishes to try them. Thus it 
is that religion changes evil into good ! Some one 
has said profanely, but with reason : “ If the good 
God treats thus those whom He loves, I beseech 
Him very earnestly not to think of me.” Men 
must have formed very sinister and very cruel ideas 
of their God whom they call so good, in order to 
persuade themselves that the most frightful calami- 
ties and the most painful afflictions are signs of 
His favor ! Would a wicked Genii or a Devil be 
more ingenious in tormenting his enemies, than 
sometimes is this God of goodness, who is so often 
occupied with inflicting His chastisements upon 
His dearest friends ? 

LXXIX. — A GOD WHO PUNISHES THE FAULTS 
WHICH HE COULD HAVE PREVENTED, IS A 
FOOL, WHO ADDS INJUSTICE TO FOOLISH- 
NESS. 

What would we say oi a father who, we are as- 
sured, watches without relaxation over the welfare 
of his feeble and unforeseeing children, and who 


God Adds Injustice to Foolishness. 109 

however, would leave them at liberty to go astray in 
the midst of rocks, precipices, and waters; who 
would prevent them but rarely from following their 
disordered appetites ; who would permit them to 
handle, without precaution, deadly arms, at the risk 
of wounding themselves severely ? What would we 
think of this same father, if, instead of blaming 
himself for the harm which would have happened 
to his poor children, he should punish them for 
their faults in the most cruel way? We would 
say, with reason, that this father is a fool, who 
joins injustice to foolishness. A God who punishes 
the faults which He could have prevented, is a be- 
ing who lacks wisdom, goodness, and equity. A 
God of foresight would prevent evil, and in this 
way would be saved the trouble of punishing it. 
A good God would not punish weaknesses which 
He knows to be inherent in human nature. A 
just God, if He has made man, would not punish 
him for not being strong enough to resist his de- 
sires. To punish weakness, is the most unjust 
tyranny. Is it not calumniating a just God, to say 
that He punishes men for their faults, even in the 
present life ? How would He punish beings whom 
He alone could correct, and who, as long as they 
had not received grace, can not act otherwise than 
they do ? 

According to the principles of theologians them- 
selves, man, in his actual state of corruption, can do 
nothing but evil, for without Divine grace he has not 
the strength to do good. Moreover, if man’s nature, 
abandoned to itself, 01 destitute of Divine help, in- 


no Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

dines him necessarily to evil, or renders him inca- 
pable of doing good, what becomes of his free will t 
According to such principles, man can merit neither 
reward nor punishment ; in rewarding man for the 
good he does, God would but recompense Himself; 
in punishing man for the evil he does, God punishes 
him for not having been given the grace, without 
which it was impossible for him to do better. 

LXXX. — FREE WILL IS AN IDLE FANCY. 

Theologians tell and repeat to us that man is 
free, while all their teachings conspire to destroy 
his liberty. Trying to justify Divinity, they accuse 
him really of the blackest injustice. They suppose 
that, without grace, man is compelled to do evil : 
and they maintain that God will punish him for 
not having been given the grace to do good ! With 
a little reflection, we will be obliged to see that man 
in all things acts by compulsion, and that his free 
will is a chimera, even according to the theological 
system. Does it depend upon man whether or not 
he shall be born of such or such parents ? Does it 
depend upon man to accept or not to accept the 
opinions of his parents and of his teachers ? If I were 
born of idolatrous or Mohammedan parents, would 
it have depended upon me to become a Christian ? 
However, grave Doctors of Divinity assure us that 
a just God will damn without mercy all those to 
whom He has not given the grace to know the re- 
ligion of the Christians. 

Man’s birth does not depend upon his choice ; 
he was not asked if he would or would not come 


Free Will is an Idle Fancy. 1 1 1 

into the world ; nature did not consult him upon 
the country and the parents that she gave him ; 
the ideas he acquired, his opinions, his true or false 
notions are the necessary fruits of the education 
which he has received, and of which he has not been 
the master; his passions and his desires are the 
necessary results of the temperament which nature 
has given him, and of the ideas with which he has 
been inspired ; during the whole course of his life, 
his wishes and his actions are determined by his 
surroundings, his habits, his occupations, his pleas- 
ures, his conversations, and by the thoughts which 
present themselves involuntarily to him ; in short, 
by a multitude of events and accidents which are 
beyond his control. Incapable of foreseeing the 
future, he knows neither what he will wish, nor what 
he will do in the time which must immediately follow 
the present. Man passes his life, from the moment 
of his birth to that of his death, without having been 
free one instant. Man, you say, wishes, deliberates, 
chooses, determines ; hence you conclude that his 
actions are free. It is true that man intends, but 
he is not master of his will or of his desires. He 
can desire and wish only what he judges advanta- 
geous for himself ; he can not love pain nor detest 
pleasure. Man, it will be said, sometimes prefers 
pain to pleasure; but then, he prefers a passing 
pain in the hope of procuring a greater and more 
durable pleasure. In this case, the idea of a greater 
good determines him to deprive himself of one less 
desirable. 

It is not the lover who gives to his mistress the 


1 12 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

features by which he is enchanted ; he is not then 
the master to love or not to love the object of his 
tenderness ; he is not the master of the imagination 
or the temperament which dominates him; from 
which it follows, evidently, that man is not the 
master of the wishes and desires which rise in his 
soul, independently of him. But man, say you, can 
resist his desires ; then he is free. Man resists his 
desires when the motives which turn him from an 
object are stronger than those which draw him to- 
ward it ; but then, his resistance is necessary. A 
man who fears dishonor and punishment more than 
he loves money, resists necessarily the desire to 
take possession of another’s money. Are we not 
free when we deliberate ? — but has one the power to 
know or not to know, to be uncertain or to be as- 
sured ? Deliberation is the necessary effect of the 
uncertainty in which we find ourselves with refer- 
ence to the results of our actions. As soon as we 
believe ourselves certain of these results, we neces- 
sarily decide ; and then we act necessarily accord- 
ing as we shall have judged right or wrong. Our 
judgments, true or false, are not free ; they are 
necessarily determined by ideas which we have re- 
ceived, or which our mind has formed. Man is not 
free in his choice; he is evidently compelled to 
choose what he judges the most useful or the most 
agreeable for himself. When he suspends his choice, 
he is not more free ; he is forced to suspend it till 
he knows or believes he knows the qualities of the 
objects presented to him, or until he has weighed 
the consequence of his actions. Man, you will say, 


Free Will is an Idle Fancy. 113 

decides every moment on actions which he knows 
will endanger him ; man kills himself sometimes, 
then he is free. I deny it ! Has man the ability 
to reason correctly or incorrectly ? Do not his rea- 
son and his wisdom depend either upon opinions 
that he has formed, or upon his mental constitu- 
tion? As neither the one nor the other depends 
upon his will, they can not in any wise prove his 
liberty. 

If I make the wager to do or not to do a thing, 
am I not free? Does it not depend upon me to 
do or not to do it? No; I will answer you, the 
desire to win the wager will necessarily determine 
you to do or not to do the thing in question. “ But 
if I consent to lose the wager ?” Then the desire 
to prove to me that you are free will have become 
to you a stronger motive than the desire to win the 
wager; and this motive will necessarily have de- 
termined you to do or not to do what was under- 
stood between us. But you will say, “ I feel my- 
self free/’ It is an illusion which may be compared 
to that of the fly in the fable, which, lighting on 
the shaft of a heavy wagon, applauded itself as 
driver of the vehicle which carried it. Man who 
believes himself free, is a fly who believes himself 
the master-motor in the machine of the universe, 
while he himself, without his own volition, is car- 
ried on by it. The feeling which makes us believe 
that we are free to do or not to do a thing, is but a 
pure illusion. When we come to the veritable prin- 
ciple of our actions, we will find that they are noth- 
ing b it the necessary results of our wills and of ouf 


1 14 Common Se?ise , by Jean Meslier. 

desires, which are never within our power. You 
believe yourselves free because you do as you 
choose ; but are you really free to will or not to 
will, to desire or not to desire? Your wills and 
your desires, are they not necessarily excited by 
objects or by qualities which do not depend upon 
you at all ? 

LXXXI. — WE SHOULD NOT CONCLUDE FROM THIS 
THAT SOCIETY HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO 
CHASTISE THE WICKED. 

If the actions of men are necessary, if men are 
not free, what right has society to punish the 
wicked who infest it? Is it not very unjust to 
chastise beings who could not act otherwise than 
they did? If the wicked act from the impulse of 
their corrupt nature, society in punishing them acts 
necessarily on its side from the desire to preserve 
itself. Certain objects produce in us the feeling of 
pain ; therefore our nature compels us to hate 
them, and incites us to remove them. A tiger 
pressed by hunger, attacks the man whom he wishes 
to devour ; but the man is not the master of his 
fear of the tiger, and seeks necessarily the means 
of exterminating it. 

LXXXII— REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS IN 
FAVOR OF FREE WILL. 

If everything is necessary, if errors, opinions, and 
ideas of men are fated, how or why can we pretend 
to reform them ? The errors of men are the neces- 
sary results of their ignorance; their ignorance, 


Refutation of Free-Will Arguments. 1 1 5 

their obstinacy, their credulity, are the necessary 
results of their inexperience, of their indifference, 
of their lack of reflection ; the same as congestion 
of the brain or lethargy are the natural effects of 
some diseases. Truth, experience, reflection, rea- 
son, are the proper remedies to cure ignorance, 
fanaticism, and follies ; the same as bleeding is 
good to soothe congestion of the brain. But you 
will say, why does not truth produce this effect 
upon many of the sick heads? There are some dis- 
eases which resist all remedies ; it is impossible to 
cure obstinate patients who refuse to take the rem- 
edies v/hich are given them ; the interest of some 
men and the folly of others naturally oppose them 
to the admission of truth. A cause produces its 
effect only when it is not interrupted in its action 
by other causes which are stronger, or which weaken 
the action of the first cause or render it useless. 
It is entirely impossible to have the best arguments 
accepted by men who are strongly interested in 
error; who are prejudiced in its favor; who refuse 
to reflect ; but it must necessarily be that truth un- 
deceives the honest souls who seek it in good faith. 
Truth is a cause; it produces necessarily its effect 
when its impulse is not interrupted by causes which 
suspend its effects. 

LXXXIII. — CONT1N UATION. 

To take away from man his free will, is, we are 
told, to make of him a pure machine, an automa- 
ton without liberty; there would exist in him 
neither merit nor virtue What is merit in man? 


Il6 Common Sense, by Jean Me slier. 

It is a certain manner of acting which renders him 
estimable in the eyes of his fellow beings. What 
is virtue ? It is the disposition that causes us to do 
good to others. What can there be contemptible 
in automatic machines capable of producing such 
desirable effects? Marcus Aurelius was a very use- 
ful spring to the vast machine of the Roman Em* 
pire. By what right will a machine despise another 
machine, whose springs would facilitate its own 
play? Good people are springs which assist soci- 
ety in its tendency to happiness ; wicked men are 
badly-formed springs, which disturb the order, the 
progress, and harmony of society. If for its own 
interests society loves and rewards the good, she 
hates, despises, and removes the wicked, as useless 
or dangerous motors. 

LXXXIV.— GOD HIMSELF, IF THERE WAS A GOD, 
WOULD NOT BE FREE; HENCE THE USELESS- 
NESS OF ALL RELIGION. 

The world is a necessary agent ; all the beings 
which compose it are united to each other, and 
can not do otherwise than they do, so long as they 
are moved by the same causes and possessed of the 
same qualities. If they lose these qualities, they 
will act necessarily in a different way. God Him- 
self (admitting His existence a moment) can not 
be regarded as a free agent ; if there existed a 
God, His manner of acting would necessarily be 
determined by the qualities inherent in His nature ; 
nothing would be able to alter or to oppose His 
wishes. This considered, neither our actions nor 


God has no Right to Punish or Reward. 1 1 J 

our prayers nor our sacrifices could suspend or 
change His invariable progress and His immutable 
designs, from which we are compelled to conclude 
that all religion would be entirely useless. 

LXXXV . — EVEN ACCORDING TO THEOLOGICAL 

PRINCIPLES, MAN IS NOT FREE ONE INSTANT. 

If theologians were not constantly contradicting 
each other, they would know, from their own hy- 
potheses, that man can not be called free for an 
instant. Is not man supposed to be in a continual 
dependence upon God ? Is one free, when one 
could not have existed or can not live without 
God, and when one ceases to exist at the pleasure 
of His supreme will ? If God created man of noth- 
ing, if the preservation of man is a continual cre- 
ation, if God can not lose sight of His creature for 
an instant, if all that happens to him is a result of 
the Divine will, if man is nothing of himself, if all 
the events which he experiences are the effects of 
Divine decrees, if he can not do any good without 
assistance from above, how can it be pretended 
that man enjoys liberty during one moment of his 
life? If God did not save him in the moment 
when he sins, how could man sin ? If God pre- 
serves him, God, therefore, forces him to live in or- 
der to sin. 

LXXXVI. — ALL EVIL, ALL DISORDER, ALL SIN, CAN 
BE ATTRIBUTED BUT TO GOD; AND CONSE- 
QUENTLY, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO PUNISH OR 
REWARD. 

Divinity is continually compared to a king, the 


1 1 8 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

majority of whose subjects revolt against Him 
and it is pretended that He has the right to reward 
His faithful subjects, and to punish those who re- 
volt against Him. This comparison is not just in 
any of its parts. God presides over a machine, of 
which He has made all the springs ; these springs 
act according to the way in which God has formed 
them ; it is the fault of His inaptitude if these 
springs do not contribute to the harmony of the 
machine in which the workman desired to place 
them. God is a creating King, who created all 
kinds of subjects for Himself ; who formed them 
according to His pleasure, and whose wishes can 
never find any resistance. If God in His empire 
has rebellious subjects, it is God who resolved to 
have rebellious subjects. If the sins of men dis- 
turb the order of the world, it is God who desired 
this order to be disturbed. Nobody dares to doubt 
Divine justice ; however, under the empire of a just 
God, we find nothing but injustice and violence. 
Power decides the fate of nations. Equity seems 
to be banished from the earth ; a small number of 
men enjoy with impunity the repose, the fortunes, 
the liberty, and the life of all the others. Every- 
thing is in disorder in a world governed by a God 
of whom it is said that disorder displeases Him 
exceedingly. 

LXXXVII.— men’s prayers to god prove suf- 
ficiently THAT THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED 
WITH THE DIVINE ECONOMY. 

Although men incessantly admire the wisdom 


Men not Satisfied with the Divine Economy. 1 19 

the goodness, the justice, the beautiful order of 
Providence, they are, in fact, never contented with 
it. The prayers which they continually offer to 
Heaven, prove to us that they are not at all satis- 
fied with God’s administration. Praying to God, 
asking a favor of Him, is to mistrust His vigilant 
care ; to pray God to avert or to suppress an evil, 
is to endeavor to put obstacles in the way of His 
justice ; to implore the assistance of God in our 
calamities, means to appeal to the very author of 
these calamities in order to represent to Him our 
welfare ; that He ought to rectify in our favor His 
plan, which is not beneficial to our interests. The 
optimist, or the one who thinks that everything is 
good in the world, and who repeats to us inces- 
santly that we live in the best world possible, if 
he were consistent, ought never to pray ; still less 
should he expect another world where men will be 
happier. Can there be a better world than the 
best possible of all worlds ? Some of the theolo- 
gians have treated the optimists as impious for 
having claimed that God could not have made a 
better world than the one in which we live ; ac- 
cording to these doctors it is limiting the Divine 
power and insulting it. But do not theologians 
see that it is less offensive for God, to pretend that 
He did His best in creating the world, than to say 
that He, having the power to produce a better one, 
had the malice to make a very bad one ? If the 
optimist, by his system, does wrong to the Divine 
power, the theologian, who treats him as impious, 
is himself a reprobate, who wounds the Divine good- 
ness under pretext of taking interest in God. 


120 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


LXXXVIII. — THE REPARATION OF THE INIQUITIES 
AND THE MISERIES OF THIS WORLD IN AN- 
OTHER WORLD, IS AN IDLE CONJECTURE AND 
AN ABSURD SUPPOSITION. 

When we complain of the evils of which this world 
is the theater, we are referred to another world ; 
we are told that there God will repair all the iniqui- 
ties and the miseries which He permits for a time 
here below. However, if leaving His eternal jus- 
tice to sleep for a time, God could consent to evil 
during the period of the existence of our globe, 
what assurance have we that during the existence 
of another globe, Divine justice will not likewise 
sleep during the misfortunes of its inhabitants? 
They console us in our troubles by saying, that 
God is patient, and that His justice, although often 
very slow, is not the less certain. But do you not 
see, that patience can not be suited to a being just, 
immutable, and omnipotent ? Can God tolerate 
injustice for an instant? To temporize with an 
evil that one knows of, evinces either uncertainty, 
weakness, or collusion ; to tolerate evil which one 
has the power to prevent, is to consent that evil 
should be committed. 

LXXXIX. — THEOLOGY JUSTIFIES THE EVIL AND 
INJUSTICE PERMITTED BY ITS GOD, ONLY BY 
CONCEDING TO THIS GOD THE RIGHT OF THE 
STRONGEST, THAT IS TO SAY, THE VIOLATION 
OF ALL RIGHTS, OR IN COMMANDING FROM 
MEN A STUPID DEVOTION. 

I hear a multitude of theologians tell me on all 


Theology Commands a Stupid Devotion . 121 

sides, that God is infinitely just, but that His jus- 
tice is not that of men ! Of what kind, or of what 
nature is this Divine justice then ? What idea can 
I form of a justice which so often resembles human 
injustice ? Is it not confounding all our ideas of 
justice and of injustice, to tell us that what is equit- 
able in God is iniquitous in His creatures ? How 
can we take as a model a being whose Divine per- 
fections are precisely contrary to human perfec- 
tions ? God, you say, is the sovereign arbiter of 
our destinies ; His supreme power, that nothing 
can limit, authorizes Him to do as He pleases with 
His works ; a worm, such as man, has not the right 
to murmur against Him. This arrogant tone is lit- 
erally borrowed from the language which the minis- 
ters of tyrants hold, when they silence those who 
suffer by their violences ; it can not, then, be the 
language of the ministers of a God of whose equity 
they boast. It can not impose upon a being who 
reasons. Ministers of a just God ! I tell you then, 
that the greatest power is not able to confer even 
upon your God Himself the right to be unjust to 
the vilest of His creatures. A despot is not a God. 
A God who arrogates to Himself the right to do 
evil, is a tyrant ; a tyrant is not a model for men. 
He ought to be an execrable object in their eyes. 
Is it not strange that, in order to justify Divinity, 
they made of Him the most unjust of beings ? As 
soon as we complain of His conduct, they think to 
silence us by claiming that God is the Master; 
which signifies that God, being the strongest, He 
is not subjected to ordinary rules. But the right 


122 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

of the strongest is the violation of all rights ; it can 
pass as a right but in the eyes of a savage conquer- 
or, who, in the intoxication of his fury, imagines he 
has the right to do as he pleases with the unfortu- 
nate ones whom he has conquered ; this barbarous 
right can appear legitimate only to slaves, who are 
blind enough to think that everything is allowed 
to tyrants, who are too strong for them to resist. 

By a foolish simplicity, or rather by a plain con- 
tradiction of terms, do we not see devotees exclaim, 
amidst the greatest calamities, that the good Lord 
is the Master ? Well, illogical reasoners, you 
believe in good faith that the good Lord sends 
you the pestilence ; that your good Lord gives 
war ; that the good Lord is the cause of famine ; 
in a word, that the good Lord, without ceasing to 
be good, has the will and the right to do you the 
greatest evils you can endure ! Cease to call your 
Lord good when He does you harm : do not say 
that He is just ; say that He is the strongest, and 
that it is impossible for you to avert the blows 
which His caprice inflicts upon you. God, you say, 
punishes us for our highest good ; but what real 
benefit can result to a nation in being exterminated 
by contagion, murdered by wars, corrupted by the 
examples of perverse masters, continually pressed 
by the iron scepter of merciless tyrants, subjected 
to the scourge of a bad government, which often 
for centuries causes nations to suffer its destructive 
effects? The eyes of faith must be strange eyes, if 
we see by their means any advantage in the most 
dreadful miseries and in the most durable evils, in 


God is Barbarous and Unjust . 123 

the vices and follies by which our kind is so cruelly 
afflicted ! 

XC. — REDEMPTION, AND THE CONTINUAL EXTER- 
MINATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO JEHOVAH IN THE 
BIBLE, ARE SO MANY ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS 
INVENTIONS WHICH PRESUPPOSE AN UNJUST 
AND BARBAROUS GOD. 

What strange ideas of the Divine justice must 
the Christians have who believe that their God, 
with the view of reconciling Himself with man- 
kind, guilty without knowledge of the fault of their 
parents, sacrificed His own innocent and sinless 
Son ! What would we say of a king, whose sub- 
jects having revolted against him, in order to ap- 
pease himself could find no other expedient than 
to put to death the heir to his crown, who had 
taken no part in the general rebellion ? It is, the 
Christian will say, through kindness for His sub- 
jects, incapable of satisfying themselves of His 
Divine justice, that God consented to the cruel 
death of His Son. But the kindness of a father to 
strangers does not give him the right to be unjust 
and cruel to his son. All the qualities that theol- 
ogy gives to its God annul each other. The exer- 
cise of one of His perfections is always at the ex- 
pense of another. 

Has the Jew any more rational ideas than the 
Christian of Divine justice? A king, by his pride, 
kindles the wrath of Heaven. Jehovah sends pes- 
tilence upon His innocent people ; seventy thousand 
subjects are exterminated to expiate the fault of 


124 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

a monarch that the kindness of God resolved to 
spare. 

XCI.— HOW CAN WE DISCOVER A TENDER, GEN- 
EROUS, AND EQUITABLE FATHER IN A BEING 
WHO HAS CREATED HIS CHILDREN BUT TO 
MAKE THEM UNHAPPY? 

In spite of the injustice with which all religions 
are pleased to blacken the Divinity, men can not 
consent to accuse Him of iniquity; they fear that 
He, like the tyrants of this world, will be offended 
by the truth, and redouble the weight of His malice 
and tyranny upon them. They listen, then, to their 
priests, who tell them that their God is a tender 
Father; that this God is an equitable Monarch, 
whose object in this world is to assure Himself of 
the love, obedience, and respect of His subjects ; 
who gives them the liberty to act, in order to give 
them occasion to deserve His favors and to acquire 
eternal happiness, which He does not owe them in 
any way. In what way can we recognize the ten- 
derness of a Father who created the majority of 
His children but for the purpose of dragging out a 
life of pain, anxiety, and bitterness upon this earth ? 
Is there any more fatal boon than this pretended 
liberty which, it is said, men can abuse, and thereby 
expose themselves to the risk of eternal misery ? 

XCII.— THE LIFE OF MORTALS, ALL WHICH TAKES 
PLACE HERE BELOW, TESTIFIES AGAINST 
MAN’S LIBERTY AND AGAINST THE JUSTICE 
AND GOODNESS OF A PRETENDED GOD. 

In calling mortals into life, what a cruel and dan* 


The Justice and Goodness of God. 125 

gerous game does the Divinity force them to play ! 
Thrust into the world without their wish, provided 
with a temperament of which they are not the mas- 
ters, animated by passions and desires inherent in 
their nature, exposed to snares which they have not 
the skill to avoid, led away by events which they 
could neither foresee nor prevent, the unfortunate 
beings are obliged to follow a career which conducts 
them to horrible tortures. 

Travelers assert that in some part of Asia reigns 
a sultan full of phantasies, and very absolute in his 
will. By a strange mania this prince spends his 
time sitting before a table, on which are placed six 
dice and a dice-box. One end of the table is cov- 
ered with a pile of gold, for the purpose of exciting 
the cupidity of the courtiers and of the people by 
whom the sultan is surrounded. He, knowing the 
weak point of his subjects, speaks to them in this 
way : “ Slaves ! I wish you well ; my aim is to en- 
rich you and render you all happy. Do you see 
these treasures? Well, they are for you! try to 
win them ; let each one in turn take this box and 
these dice ; whoever shall have the good luck to 
raffle six, will be master of this treasure ; but I 
warn you that he who has not the luck to throw 
the required number, will be precipitated forever 
into an obscure cell, where my justice exacts that 
he shall be burned by a slow fire.’’ Upon this 
threat of the monarch, they regarded each other in 
consternation ; no one willing to take a risk so dan- 
gerous. “ What ! ” said the angry sultan, “ no one 
wants to play? Oh, this does not suit me! My 


126 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

glory demands that you play. You will raffle then ; 
I wish it; obey without replying!” It is well to 
observe that the despot’s dice are prepared in such 
a way, that upon a hundred thousand throws there 
is but one that wins ; thus the generous monarch 
has the pleasure to see his prison well filled, and 
his treasures seldom carried away. Mortals ! this 
Sultan is your God ; His treasures are heaven ; 
His cell is hell ; and you hold the dice ! 

XCIII. — IT IS NOT TRUE THAT WE OWE ANY GRAT- 
ITUDE TO WHAT WE CALL PROVIDENCE. 

We are constantly told that we owe an infinite 
gratitude to Providence for the countless blessings 
It is pleased to lavish upon us. They boast above 
all that our existence is a blessing. But, alas ! how 
many mortals are really satisfied with their mode 
of existence? If life has its sweets, how much of 
bitterness is mingled with it? Is not one bitter 
trouble sufficient to blight all of a sudden the most 
peaceful and happy life? Is there a great number 
of men who, if it depended upon them, would wish 
to begin, at the same sacrifice, the painful career 
into which, without their consent, destiny has 
thrown them? You say that existence itself is a 
great blessing. But is not this existence continu- 
ally troubled by griefs, fears, and often cruel and 
undeserved maladies. This existence, menaced on 
so many sides, can we not be deprived of it at any 
moment? Who is there, after having lived for 
some time, who has not been deprived of a beloved 
wife, a beloved child, a consoling friend, whose loss 


Man fiot the Beloved Child of Providence. 127 

fills his mind constantly? There are very few mor- 
tals who have not been compelled to drink from 
the cup of bitterness ; there are but few who have 
not often wished to die. Finally, it did not depend 
upon us to exist or not to exist. Would the bird 
be under such great obligations to the bird-catcher 
for having caught it in his net and for having put it 
into his cage, in order to eat it after being amused 
with it ? 

XCIV. — TO PRETEND THAT MAN IS THE BELOVED 
CHILD OF PROVIDENCE, GOD’S FAVORITE, THE 
ONLY OBJECT OF HIS LABORS, THE KING OF 
NATURE, IS FOLLY. 

In spite of the infirmities, the troubles, the mis- 
eries to which man is compelled to submit in this 
world ; in spite of the danger which his alarmed 
imagination creates in regard to another, he is still 
foolish enough to believe himself to be God’s fa- 
vorite, the only aim of all His works. He imagines 
that the entire universe was made for him ; he calls 
himself arrogantly the king of nature, and ranks him- 
self far above other animals. Poor mortal ! upon 
what can you establish your high pretensions ? It 
is, you say, upon your soul, upon your reason, upon 
your sublime faculties, which place you in a condi- 
tion to exercise an absolute authority over the be- 
ings which sui round you. But weak sovereign of 
this world, art thou sure one instant of the duration 
of thy reign ? The least atoms of matter which 
you despise, are they not sufficient to deprive you 
of your throne and life ? Finally, does not the king 


128 Common Sense, by Jean Meslicr. 

of animals terminate always by becoming food for 
the worms ? 

You speak of your soul. But do you know what 
your soul is ? Do you not see that this soul is but 
the assemblage of your organs, from which life re- 
sults ? Would you refuse a soul to other animals 
who live, who think, who judge, who compare, who 
seek pleasure, and avoid pain even as you do, and 
who often possess organs which are better than 
your own? You boast of your intellectual facul- 
ties, but these faculties which render you so proud, 
do they make you any happier than other creat- 
ures ? Do you often make use of this reason which 
you glory in, and which religion commands you not 
to listen to ? Those animals which you disdain 
because they are weaker or less cunning than your- 
self, are they subject to troubles, to mental anxie- 
ties, to a thousand frivolous passions, to a thousand 
imaginary needs, of which your heart is continually 
the prey ? Are they, like you, tormented by the 
past, alarmed for the future? Limited solely to 
the present, what you call their instinct, and what 
I call their intelligence, is it not sufficient to pre- 
serve and to defend them and to provide for their 
needs ? This instinct, of which you speak with dis- 
dain, does it not often serve them much better than 
your wonderful faculties ? Their peaceable igno- 
rance, is it not more advantageous than these ex- 
travagant meditations and these futile investiga- 
tions which render you miserable, and for which 
you are driven to murdering beings of your own 
noble kind ? Finally, these animals, have they, 


Comparison Between Man and A nimals. 1 29 

like mortals, a troubled imagination which makes 
them fear not only death, but even eternal tor- 
ments ? Augustus, having heard that Herod, king 
of Judea, had murdered his sons, cried out: “It 
would be better to be Herod’s pig than his son !’’ 
We can say as much of men ; this beloved child 
of Providence runs much greater risks than all 
other animals. After having suffered a great deal 
in this world, do we not believe ourselves in danger 
of suffering for eternity in another ? 

XCV. — COMPARISON BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS. 

What is the exact line of demarkation between 
man and the other animals w r hich he calls brutes ? 
In what way does he essentially differ from the 
beasts ? It is, we are told, by his intelligence, by 
the faculties of his mind, by his reason, that man 
is superior to all the other animals, which in all 
they do, act but by physical impulsions, reason 
taking no part. But the beasts, having more lim- 
ited needs than men, do very well without these 
intellectual faculties, which would be perfectly use- 
less in their way of living. Their instinct is suffi- 
cient for them, while all the faculties of man are 
hardly sufficient to render his existence endurable, 
and to satisfy the needs which his imagination, his 
prejudices, and his institutions multiply to his tor- 
ment. 

The brute is not affected by the same objects as 
man ; it has neither the same needs, nor the same 
desires, nor the same whims ; it early reaches ma- 
turity, while nothing is more rare than to see the 


130 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

human being enjoying all of his faculties, exercis- 
ing them freely, and making a proper use of them 
for his own happiness. 

XCVI. — THERE ARE NO MORE DETESTABLE ANI- 
MALS IN THIS WORLD THAN TYRANTS. 

We are assured that the human soul is a simple 
substance ; but if the soul is such a simple sub- 
stance, it ought to be the same in all the individ- 
uals of the human race, who all ought to have the 
same intellectual faculties ; however, this is not the 
case ; men differ as much in qualities of mind as in 
the features of the face. There are in the human 
race, beings as different from one another as man is 
from a horse or a dog. What conformity or resem- 
blance do we find between some men ? What an 
infinite distance between the genius of a Locke, of 
a Newton, and that of a peasant, of a Hottentot, 
or of a Laplander ! 

Man differs from other animals but by the differ- 
ence of his organization, which causes him to pro- 
duce effects of which they are not capable. The 
variety which we notice in the organs of individ- 
uals of the human race, suffices to explain to us 
the difference which is often found between them 
in regard to the intellectual faculties. More or less 
of delicacy in these organs, of heat in the blood, of 
promptitude in the fluids, more or less of supple- 
ness or of rigidity in the fibers and the nerves, 
must necessarily produce the infinite diversities 
which are noticeable in the minds of men. It is 
by exercise, by habitude, by education, that the 


Refutation of Mans Excellence. 1 3 1 

human mind is developed and succeeds in rising 
above the beings which surround it ; man, without 
culture and without experience, is a being as de- 
void of reason and of industry as the brute. A 
stupid individual is a man whose organs are acted 
upon with difficulty, whose brain is hard to move, 
whose blood circulates slowly ; a man of mind is 
he whose organs are supple, who feels very quickly, 
whose brain moves promptly ; a learned man is 
one whose organs and whose brain have been 
exercised a long while upon objects which occupy 
him. 

The man without culture, experience, or reason, 
is he not more despicable and more abominable 
than the vilest insects, or the most ferocious beasts? 
Is there a more detestable being in nature than a 
Tiberius, a Nero, a Caligula ? These destroyers of 
the human race, known by the name of conquerors, 
have they better souls than those of bears, lions, 
and panthers ? Are there more detestable animals 
in this world than tyrants ? 

XCVII— REFUTATION OF MAN’S EXCELLENCE. 

Human extravagances soon dispel, in the eyes 
of reason, the superiority which man arrogantly 
claims over other animals. Do we not see many 
animals show more gentleness, more reflection and 
reason than the animal which calls itself reasonable 
par excellence ? Are there amongst men, who are 
so often enslaved and oppressed, societies as well 
organized as those of ants, bees, or beavers ? Do 
we ever see ferocious beasts of the same kind meet 


132 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

upon the plains to devour each other without profit ? 
Do we see among them religious wars ? The cru- 
elty of beasts against other species is caused by 
hunger, the need of nourishment ; the cruelty of 
man against man has no other motive than the 
vanity of his masters and the folly of his imperti- 
nent prejudices. Theorists who try to make us 
believe that everything in the universe was made 
for man, are very much embarrassed when we ask 
them in what way can so many mischievous ani- 
mals which continually infest our life here, contrib- 
ute to the welfare of men. What known advantage 
results for God’s friend to be bitten by a viper, 
stung by a gnat, devoured by vermin, torn into 
pieces by a tiger? Would not all these animals 
reason as wisely as our theologians, if they should 
pretend that man was made for them ? 

XCVIII. — AN ORIENTAL LEGEND. 

At a short distance from Bagdad a dervis, cele- 
brated for his holiness, passed his days tranquilly 
in agreeable solitude. The surrounding inhabitants, 
in order to have an interest in his prayers, eagerly 
brought to him every day provisions and presents. 
The holy man thanked God incessantly for the 
blessings Providence heaped upon him. “ O Allah,” 
said he, “ how ineffable is Thy tenderness toward 
Thy servants. What have I done to deserve the 
benefactions which Thy liberality loads me with ! 
Oh, Monarch of the skies ! oh, Father of nature ! 
what praises could be worthy to celebrate Thy mu- 
nificence and Thy paternal cares ! O Allah, how 


An Oriental Legend . 


133 


great are Thy gifts to the children of men ! ” Filled 
with gratitude, our hermit made a vow to under- 
take for the seventh time the pilgrimage to Mecca. 
The war, which then existed between the Persians 
and the Turks, could not make him defer the exe- 
cution of his pious enterprise. Full of confidence 
in God, he began his journey ; under the inviolable 
safeguard of a respected garb, he passed through 
without obstacle the enemies’ detachments ; far 
from being molested, he receives at every step 
marks of veneration from the soldiers of both 
sides. At last, overcome by fatigue, he finds him- 
self obliged to seek a shelter from the rays of the 
burning sun ; he finds it beneath a fresh group of 
palm-trees, whose roots were watered by a limpid 
rivulet. In this solitary place, where the silence 
was broken only by the murmuring of the waters 
and the singing of the birds, the man of God found 
not only an enchanting retreat, but also a delicious 
repast ; he had but to extend the hand to gather 
dates and other agreeable fruits ; the rivulet can 
appease his thirst ; very soon a green plot invites 
him to take sweet repose. As he awakens he per- 
forms the holy cleansing ; and in a transport of ec- 
stasy, he exclaimed : “ O Allah ! HOW great IS Thy 
GOODNESS TO THE CHILDREN OF MEN ! ” Well 
rested, refreshed, full of life and gayety, our holy 
man continues on his road ; it conducts him for 
some time through a delightful country, which 
offers to his sight but blooming shores and trees 
filled with fruit. Softened by this spectacle, he 
worships incessantly the rich and liberal hand of 


134 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

Providence, which is everywhere seen occupied with 
the welfare of the human race. Going a little 
farther, he comes across a few mountains, which 
were quite hard to ascend ; but having arrived at 
their summit, a hideous sight suddenly meets his 
eyes; his soul is all consternation. He discovers a 
yast plain entirely devastated by the sword and 
fire ; he looks at it and finds it covered with more 
than a hundred thousand corpses, deplorable re- 
mains of a bloody battle which had taken place a 
few days previous. Eagles, vultures, ravens, and 
wolves were devouring the dead bodies with which 
the earth was covered. This sight plunges our pil- 
grim into a sad reverie. Heaven, by a special favor, 
had made him understand the language of beasts. 
He heard a wolf, gorged with human flesh, exclaim 
in his excessive joy : “ O Allah ! how great is Thy 
kindness for the children of wolves ! Thy foresee- 
ing wisdom takes care to send infatuation upon 
these detestable men who are so dangerous to us. 
Through an effect of Thy Providence which watches 
over Thy creatures, these, our destroyers, murder 
each other, and thus furnish us with sumptuous re- 
pasts. O Allah! HOW GREAT IS THY GOODNESS 
TO THE CHILDREN OF WOLVES ! ” 

XCIX.— IT IS FOOLISH TO SEE IN THE UNIVERSE 
ONLY THE EENEFACTIONS OF HEAVEN, AND 
TO BELIEVE THAT THIS UNIVERSE WAS MADE 
BUT FOR MAN. 

An exalted imagination sees in the universe but 
the benefactions of Heaven ; a calm mind finds 


Foolish Beliefs. 


135 


good and evil in it. I exist, you will say ; but is this 
existence always a benefit? You will say, look at 
this sun, which shines for you ; this earth, which is 
covered with fruits and verdure ; these flowers, 
which bloom for our sight and smell ; these trees, 
which bend beneath the weight of fruits ; these 
pure streams, which flow but to quench your thirst; 
these seas, which embrace the universe to facilitate 
your commerce ; these animals, which a foreseeing 
nature produces for your use ! Yes, I see all these 
things, and I enjoy them when I can. But in some 
climates this beautiful sun is most always obscured 
from me ; in others, its excessive heat torments 
me, produces storm, gives rise to dreadful diseases, 
dries up the fields ; the meadows have no grass, 
the trees are fruitless, the harvests are scorched, 
the springs are dried up ; I can scarcely exist, and 
I sigh under the cruelty of a nature which you find 
so benevolent. If these seas bring me spices, riches, 
and useless things, do they not destroy a multitude 
of mortals who are dupes enough to go after them? 

Man’s vanity persuades him that he is the sole 
center of the universe ; he creates for himself a 
world and a God ; he thinks himself of sufficient 
consequence to derange nature at his will, but he 
reasons as an atheist when the question of other 
animals is involved. Does he not imagine that the 
individuals different from his species are automa- 
tons unworthy of the cares of universal Providence, 
and that the beasts can not be the objects of its 
justice and kindness ? Mortals consider fortunate 
or unfortunate events, health or sickness, life and 


136 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

death, abundance or famine, as rewards or punish- 
ments for the use or misuse of the liberty which 
they arrogate to themselves. Do they reason on 
this principle when animals are taken into consid- 
eration ? No ; although they see them under a 
just God enjoy and suffer, be healthy and sick, live 
and die, like themselves, it does not enter their 
mind to ask what crimes these beasts have com- 
mitted in order to cause the displeasure of the 
Arbiter of nature. Philosophers, blinded by their 
theological prejudices, in order to disembarrass 
themselves, have gone so far as to pretend that 
beasts have no feelings ! 

Will men never renounce their foolish preten- 
sions ? Will they not recognize that nature was 
not made for them ? Will they not see that this 
nature has placed on equal footing all the beings 
which she produced ? Will they not see that all 
organized beings are equally made to be born and 
to die, to enjoy and to suffer ? Finally, instead of 
priding themselves preposterously on their mental 
faculties, are they not compelled to admit that they 
often render them more unhappy than the beasts, 
in which we find neither opinions, prejudices, vani- 
ties, nor the weaknesses which decide at every mo- 
ment the well-being of men ? 

C. — WHAT IS THE SOUL? WE KNOW NOTHING 
ABOUT IT. IF THIS PRETENDED SOUL WAS 
OF ANOTHER ESSENCE FROM THAT OF THE 
BODY, THEIR UNION WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. 

The superiority which men arrogate to them* 


What is the Soul? 


137 


selves over other animals, is principally founded 
upon the opinion of possessing exclusively an im- 
mortal soul. But as soon as we ask what this soul 
is, they begin to stammer. It is an unknown sub- 
stance ; it is a secret force distinguished from their 
bodies ; it is a spirit of which they can form no 
idea. Ask them how this spirit, which they sup- 
pose like their God, totally deprived of a physical 
substance, could combine itself with their material 
bodies ? They will tell you that they know noth- 
ing about it ; that it is a mystery to them ; that 
this combination is the effect of the Almighty 
power. These are the clear ideas which men form 
of the hidden, or, rather, imaginary substance which 
they consider the motor of all their actions ! If 
the soul is a substance essentially different from the 
body, and which can have no affinity with it, their 
union would be, not a mystery, but a thing impos- 
sible. Besides, this soul, being of an essence dif- 
ferent from that of the body, ought to act neces- 
sarily in a different way from it. However, we see 
that the movements of the body are felt by this 
pretended soul, and that these two substances, so 
different in essence, always act in harmony. You 
will tell us that this harmony is a mystery ; and I 
will tell you that I do not see my soul, that I know 
and feel but my body ; that it is my body which 
feels, which reflects, which judges, which suffers, and 
which enjoys, and that all of its faculties are the 
necessary results of its own mechanism or of its 
organization. 


138 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

CL — THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL IS AN ABSURD 
SUPPOSITION, AND THE EXISTENCE OF AN 
IMMORTAL SOUL IS A STILL MORE ABSURD 
SUPPOSITION. 

Although it is impossible for men to have the 
least idea of the soul, or of this pretended spirit 
which animates them, they persuade themselves, 
however, that this unknown soul is exempt from 
death ; everything proves to them that they feel, 
think, acquire ideas, enjoy or suffer, but by the 
means of the senses or of the material organs of 
the body. Even admitting the existence of this 
soul, one can not refuse to recognize that it de- 
pends wholly on the body, and suffers conjointly 
with it all the vicissitudes which it experiences it- 
self ; and however it is imagined that it has by its 
nature nothing analogous with it ; it is pretended 
that it can act and feel without the assistance of 
this body ; that deprived of this body and robbed 
of its senses, this soul will be able to live, to enjoy, 
to suffer, be sensitive of enjoyment or of rigorous 
torments. Upon such a tissue of conjectural ab- 
surdities the wonderful opinion of the immortality 
of the soul is built. 

If I ask what ground we have for supposing that 
the soul is immortal : they reply, it is because man 
by his nature desires to be immortal, or to live for- 
ever. But I rejoin, if you desire anything very 
much, is it sufficient to conclude that this desire 
will be fulfilled ? By what strange logic do they 
decide that a thing can not fail to happen because 


It is Evident that the Whole of Man Dies . 1 39 

they ardently desire it to happen ? Man’s childish 
desires of the imagination, are they the measure 
of reality ? Impious people, you say, deprived of 
the flattering hopes of another life, desire to be 
annihilated. Well, have they not just as much 
right to conclude by this desire that they will be 
annihilated, as you to conclude that you will exist 
forever because you desire it ? 

CII.— IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WHOLE OF 
MAN DIES. 

Man dies entirely. Nothing is more evident to 
him who is not delirious. The human body, after 
death, is but a mass, incapable of producing any 
movements the union of which constitutes life. 
We no longer see circulation, respiration, digestion, 
speech, or reflection. It is claimed then that the 
soul has separated itself from the body. But to 
say that this soul, which is unknown, is the prin- 
ciple of life, is saying nothing, unless that an un- 
known force is the invisible principle of impercep- 
tible movements. Nothing is more natural and 
more simple than to believe that the dead man 
lives no more, nothing more absurd than to believe 
that the dead man is still living. 

We ridicule the simplicity of some nations whose 
fashion is to bury provisions with the dead — under 
the idea that this food might be useful and neces- 
sary to them in another life. Is it more ridiculous 
or more absurd to believe that men will eat after 
death than to imagine that they will think ; that 
they will have agreeable or disagreeable ideas ; that 


140 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

they will enjoy; that they will suffer; that they 
will be conscious of sorrow or joy when the organs 
which produce sensations or ideas are dissolved and 
reduced to dust? To claim that the souls of men 
will be happy or unhappy after the death of the 
body, is to pretend that man will be able to see 
without eyes, to hear without ears, to taste with- 
out a palate, to smell without a nose, and to feel 
without hands and without skin. Nations who 
believe themselves very rational, adopt, neverthe- 
less, such ideas. 

CIII. — INCONTESTABLE PROOFS AGAINST THE 
SPIRITUALITY OF THE SOUL. 

The dogma of the immortality of the soul as- 
sumes that the soul is a simple substance, a spirit ; 
but I will always ask, what is a spirit ? It is, you 
say, a substance deprived of expansion, incorrupti- 
ble, and which has nothing in common with matter. 
But if this is true, how came your soul into exist- 
ence? how did it grow? how did it strengthen? 
how weaken itself, get out of order, and grow old 
with your body ? In reply to all these questions, 
you say that they are mysteries ; but if they are 
mysteries, you understand nothing about them. If 
you do not understand anything about them, how 
can you positively affirm anything about them ? In 
order to believe or to affirm anything, it is neces- 
sary at least to know what that consists of which 
we believe and which we affirm. To believe in the 
existence of your immaterial soul, is to say that 
you are persuaded of the existence of a thing of 


The Absurdity of Supernatural Causes. 141 

which it is impossible for you to form any true 
idea; it is to believe in words without attaching 
any sense to them ; to affirm that the thing is as 
you claim, is the highest folly or assumption. 

CIV. — THE ABSURDITY OF SUPERNATURAL CAUSES, 
WHICH THEOLOGIANS CONSTANTLY CALL TO 
THEIR AID. 

Are not theologians strange reasoners ? As soon 
as they can not guess the natural causes of things, 
they invent causes, which they call supernatural ; 
they imagine them spirits, occult causes, inexplica- 
ble agents, or rather words much more obscure than 
the things which they attempt to explain. Let us 
remain in nature when we desire to understand its 
phenomena ; let us ignore the causes which are too 
delicate to be seized by our organs ; and let us be 
assured that by seeking outside of nature we can 
never find the solution of nature’s problems. Even 
upon the theological hypothesis — that is to say, 
supposing an Almighty motor in matter — what 
right have theologians to refuse their God the 
power to endow this matter with thought ? Would 
it be more difficult for Him to create combinations 
of matter from which results thought, than spirits 
which think? At least, in supposing a substance 
endowed with thought, we could form some idea 
of the object of our thoughts, or of what thinks in 
us ; while attributing thought to an immaterial 
being, it is impossible for us to form the least idea 
of it. 


142 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 


CV. — IT IS FALSE THAT MATERIALISM CAN BE 
DEBASING TO THE HUMAN RACE. 

Materialism, it is objected, makes of man a mere 
machine, which is considered very debasing to the 
human race. But will the human race be more 
honored when it can be said that man acts by the 
secret impulsions of a spirit, or a certain something 
which animates him without his knowing how ? It 
is easy to perceive that the superiority which is 
given to mind over matter, or to the soul over the 
body, is based upon the ignorance of the nature of 
this soul ; while we are more familiarized with mat- 
ter or the body, which we imagine we know, 
and of which we believe we have understood the 
springs; but the most simple movements of our 
bodies are, for every thinking man, enigmas as dif- 
ficult to divine as thought. 

CVL— CONTINUATION. 

The esteem which so many people have for the 
spiritual substance, appears to result from the im- 
possibility they find in defining it in an intelligible 
way. The contempt which our metaphysicians 
show for matter, comes from the fact that “ famil- 
iarity breeds contempt.” When they tell us that 
the soul is more excellent and noble than the body, 
they tell us nothing, except that what they know 
nothing about must be more beautiful than that of 
which they have some faint ideas. 


The Dogma of Another Life Profits Priests. 143 

CVII. — THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER LIFE IS USEFUL 
BUT FOR THOSE WHO PROFIT BY IT AT THE 
EXPENSE OF THE CREDULOUS PUBLIC. 

We are constantly told of the usefulness of the 
dogma of life hereafter. It is pretended that even 
if it should be a fiction, it is advantageous, because 
it imposes upon men and leads them to virtue. 
But is it true that this dogma renders men wiser 
and more virtuous? The nations where this fiction 
is established, are they remarkable for the moral- 
ity of their conduct ? Is not the visible world al- 
ways preferred to the invisible world ? If those 
who are charged to instruct and to govern men 
had themselves enlightenment and virtue, they 
would govern them far better by realities than by 
vain chimeras; but deceitful, ambitious, and cor- 
rupt, the legislators found it everywhere easier to 
put the nations to sleep by fables than to teach 
them truths ; than to develop their reason ; than to 
excite them to virtue by sensible and real motives ; 
than to govern them in a reasonable way. 

Theologians, no doubt, have had reasons for 
making the soul immaterial. They needed souls 
and chimeras to populate the imaginary regions 
which they have discovered in the other life. Ma- 
terial souls would have been subjected, like all 
bodies, to dissolution. Moreover, if men believe 
that everything is to perish with the body, the ge- 
ographers of the other world would evidently lose 
the chance of guiding their souls to this unknown 
abode. They would draw no profits from the hopes 


144 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

with which they feast them, and from the terrors 
with which they take care to overwhelm them. If 
the future is of no real utility to the human race, 
it is at least of the greatest advantage to those who 
take upon themselves the responsibility of conduct- 
ing mankind thither. 

CVIII. — IT IS FALSE THAT THE DOGMA OF AN- 
OTHER LIFE CAN BE CONSOLING; AND IF IT 
WERE, IT WOULD BE NO PROOF THAT THIS 
ASSERTION IS TRUE. 

But, it will be said, is not the dogma of the im- 
mortality of the soul consoling for beings who often 
find themselves very unhappy here below? If this 
should be an illusion, is it not a sweet and agreeable 
one ? Is it not a benefit for man to believe that 
he can live again and enjoy, sometime, the happi- 
ness which is refused to him on earth ? Thus, poor 
mortals ! you make your wishes the measure of the 
truth! Because you desire to live- forever, and to 
be happier, you conclude from thence that you will 
live forever, and that you will be more fortunate in 
an unknown world than in the known world, in 
which you so often suffer ! Consent, then, to leave 
without regret this world, which causes more 
trouble than pleasure to the majority of you. 
Resign yourselves to the order of destiny, which 
decrees that you, like all other beings, should not 
endure forever. But what will become of me? you 
ask ! What you were several millions of years ago. 
You were then, I do not know what ; resign your- 
selves, then, to become again in an instant, I do not 


No Proof that Another Life is Consoling 145 

know what ; what you were then ; return peaceably 
to the universal home from which you came with- 
out your knowledge into your material form, and 
pass by without murmuring, like all the beings 
which surround you ! 

We are repeatedly told that religious ideas offer 
infinite consolation to the unfortunate ; it is pre- 
tended that the idea of the immortality of the soul 
and of a happier life has a tendency to lift up the 
heart of man and to sustain him in the midst of the 
adversities with which he is assailed in this life. 
Materialism, on the contrary, is, we are told, an af- 
flicting system, tending to degrade man, which 
ranks him among brutes ; which destroys his cour- 
age, whose only hope is complete annihilation, 
tending to lead him to despair, and inducing him to 
commit suicide as soon as he suffers in this world. 
The grand policy of theologians is to blow hot and 
to blow cold, to afflict and to console, to frighten 
and to reassure. 

According to the fictions of theology, the regions 
of the other life are happy and unhappy. Nothing 
more difficult than to render one worthy of the 
abode of felicity; nothing easier than to obtain a 
place in the abode of torments that Divinity pre- 
pares for the unfortunate victims of His eternal 
fury. Those who find the idea of another life so 
flattering and so sweet, have they then forgotten 
that this other life, according to them, is to be accom- 
panied by torments for the majority of mortals? 
Is not the idea of total annihilation infinitely pref- 
erable to the idea of an eternal existence accom- 


146 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

panied with suffering and gnashing of teeth? The 
fear of ceasing to exist, is it more afflicting than 
the thought of having not always been ? The fear 
of ceasing to be is but an evil for the imagination, 
which alone brought forth the dogma of another 
life. 

You say, O Christian philosophers, that the idea of 
a happier life is delightful ; we agree ; there is no one 
who would not desire a more agreeable and a more 
durable existence than the one we enjoy here below. 
But, if Paradise is tempting, you will admit, also, 
that hell is frightful. It is very difficult to merit 
heaven, and very easy to gain hell. Do you not 
say that one straight and narrow path leads to the 
happy regions, and that a broad road leads to the 
regions of the unhappy ? Do you not constantly 
tell us that the number of the chosen ones is very 
small, and that of the damned is very large ? Do 
we not need, in order to be saved, such grace as 
your God grants to but few? Well ! I tell you that 
these ideas are by no means consoling ; I prefer to 
be annihilated at once rather than to burn forever; 
I will tell you that the fate of beasts appears to me 
more desirable than the fate of the damned ; I will 
tell you that the belief which delivers me from 
overwhelming fears in this world, appears to me more 
desirable than the uncertainty in which I am left 
through belief in a God who, master of His favors, 
gives them but to His favorites, and who permits 
all the others to render themselves worthy of eter- 
nal punishments. It can be but blind enthusiasm 
or folly that can prefer a system which evidently 


Religious Principles are Imaginary . 147 

encourages improbable conjectures, accompanied 
by uncertainty and desolating fear. 

CIX. — ALL RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES ARE IMAGI- 
NARY. INNATE SENSE IS BUT THE EFFECT 
OF A ROOTED HABIT. GOD IS AN IDLE FAN- 
CY, AND THE QUALITIES WHICH ARE LAV- 
ISHED UPON HIM DESTROY EACH OTHER. 

All religious principles are a thing of imagina- 
tion, in which experience and reason have nothing 
to do. We find much difficulty in conquering 
them, because imagination, when once occupied in 
creating chimeras which astonish or excite it, is in- 
capable of reasoning. He who combats religion 
and its phantasies by the arms of reason, is like a 
man who uses a sword to kill flies : as soon as the 
blow is struck, the flies and the fancies return to 
the minds from which we thought to have banished 
them. 

As soon as we refuse the proofs which theology 
pretends to give of the existence of a God, they op- 
pose to the arguments which destroy them, an in- 
nate conviction, a profound persuasion, an invinci- 
ble inclination inherent in every man, which brings 
to him, in spite of himself, the idea of an Almighty 
being which he can not altogether expel from his 
mind, and which he is compelled to recognize in spite 
of the strongest reasons that we can give him. But 
if we wish to analyze this innate conviction, upon 
which so much weight is placed, we will find that it is 
but the effect of a rooted habit, which, making them 
dose their eyes against the most demonstrative 


148 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

proofs, leads the majority of men, and often the most 
enlightened ones, back to the prejudices of child- 
nood. What can this innate sense or this ill-founded 
persuasion prove against the evidence which shows 
us that what implies contradiction can not exist ? 

We are told, very gravely, that it is not demon- 
strated that God does not exist. However, nothing 
is better demonstrated, notwithstanding all that men 
have told us so far, than that this God is an idle fan- 
cy, whose existence is totally impossible, as nothing 
is more evident or more clearly demonstrated than 
that a being can not combine qualities so dissimi- 
lar, so contradictory, so irreconcilable as those 
which all the religions of the earth ascribe to Di- 
vinity. The theologian’s God, as well as the God of 
the theist, is He not evidently a cause incompatible 
with the effects attributed to Him ? In whatever 
light we may look upon it, we must either invent 
another God, or conclude that the one which, for 
so many centuries, has been revealed to mortals, is 
at the same time very good and very wicked, very 
powerful and very weak, immutable and change- 
able, perfectly intelligent and perfectly destitute 
of reason, of plan, and of means ; the friend of or- 
der and permitting disorder; very just and very un- 
just ; very skillful and very awkward. Finally, are 
we not obliged to admit that it is impossible to 
reconcile the discordant attributes which are heaped 
upon a being of whom we can not say a single word 
without falling into the most palpable contradic- 
tions? Let us attempt to attribute but a single 
quality to Divinity, and what is said of it will be 


Every Religion is Imaginary. 149 

contradicted immediately by the effects we assign 
to this cause. 

CX. — EVERY RELIGION IS BUT A SYSTEM IMAG- 
INED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONCILING 
CONTRADICTIONS BY THE AID OF MYSTERIES. 

Theology could very properly be defined as the 
science of contradictions. Every religion is but a 
system imagined for the purpose of reconciling ir- 
reconcilable ideas. By the aid of habitude and ter- 
ror, we come to persist in the greatest absurdities, 
even when they are the most clearly exposed. All 
religions are easy to combat, but very difficult to 
eradicate. Reason can do nothing against habit, 
which becomes, as is said, a second nature. There 
are many persons otherwise sensible, who, even after 
having examined the ruinous foundations of their 
belief, return to it in spite of the most striking argu- 
ments. 

As soon as we complain of not understanding 
religion, finding in it at every step absurdities 
which are repulsive, seeing in it but impossibilities, 
we are told that we are not made to conceive the 
truths of the religion which is proposed to us ; 
that wandering reason is but an unfaithful guide, 
only capable of conducting us to perdition ; and 
what is more, we are assured that what is folly in 
the eyes of man, is wisdom in the eyes of God, to 
whom nothing is impossible. Finally, in order to 
decide by a single word the most insurmountable 
difficulties which theology presents to us on all sides, 
they simply cry out : “ Mysteries ! ” 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


150 

CXI.— ADSURDITY AND INUTILITY OF THE MYS- 
TERIES FORGED IN THE SOLE INTEREST OF 
THE PRIESTS. 

What is a mystery? If I examine the thing 
closely, I discover very soon that a mystery is noth- 
ing but a contradiction, a palpable absurdity, a no- 
torious impossibility, on which theologians wish to 
compel men to humbly close the eyes ; in a word, 
a mystery is whatever our spiritual guides can not 
explain to us. 

It is advantageous for the ministers of religion 
that the people should not comprehend what they 
are taught. It is impossible for us to examine what 
we do not comprehend. Every time that we can 
not see clearly, we are obliged to be guided. If 
religion was comprehensible, priests would not have 
so many charges here below. 

No religion is without mysteries ; mystery is its 
essence ; a religion destitute of mysteries would be 
a contradiction of terms. The God which serves 
as a foundation to natural religion, to theism or to 
deism, is Himself the greatest mystery to a mind 
wishing to dwell upon Him. 

CXII.— CONTINUATION. 

All the revealed religions which we see in the 
world are filled with mysterious dogmas, unintelli- 
gible principles, of incredible miracles, of astonish- 
ing tales which seem imagined but to confound 
reason. Every religion announces a concealed God, 
whose essence is a mystery; consequently, it is just 


Mystery the Essence of Religion. 151 

as difficult to conceive of His conduct as of the 
essence of this God Himself. Divinity has never 
spoken to us but in an enigmatical and mysterious 
way in the various religions which have been 
founded in the different regions of our globe. It 
has revealed itself everywhere but to announce 
mysteries, that is to say, to warn mortals that it 
designs that they should believe in contradictions, 
in impossibilities, or in things of which they were 
incapable of forming any positive idea. 

The more mysteries a religion has, the more in- 
credible objects it presents to the mind, the better 
fitted it is to please the imagination of men, who 
find in it a continual pasturage to feed upon. The 
more obscure a religion is, the more it appears di- 
vine, that is to say, in conformity to the nature of 
an invisible being, of whom we have no idea. 

It is the peculiarity of ignorance to prefer the 
unknown, the concealed, the fabulous, the wonder- 
ful, the incredible, even the terrible, to that which 
is clear, simple, and true. Truth does not give to 
the imagination such lively play as fiction, which 
each one may arrange as he pleases. The vulgar 
ask nothing better than to listen to fables ; priests 
and legislators, by inventing religions and forging 
mysteries from them, have served them to their 
taste. In this way they have attracted enthusiasts, 
women, and the illiterate generally. Beings of this 
kind resign easily to reasons which they are inca- 
pable of examining ; the love of the simple and the 
true is found but in the small number of those 
whose imagination is regulated by study and by re- 


152 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

flection. The inhabitants of a village are never more 
pleased with their pastor than when he mixes a 
good deal of Latin in his sermon. Ignorant men 
always imagine that he who speaks to them of 
things which they do not understand, is a very wise 
and learned man. This is the true principle of the 
credulity of nations, and of the authority of those 
who pretend to guide them. 

CXIII.— CONTINUATION. 

To speak to men to announce to them mysteries, 
is to give and retain, it is to speak not to be under- 
stood. He who talks but by enigmas, either seeks 
to amuse himself by the embarrassment which he 
causes, or finds it to his advantage not to explain 
himself too clearly. Every secret betrays suspicion, 
weakness, and fear. Princes and their ministers make 
a mystery of their projects for fear that their ene- 
mies in penetrating them would cause them to fail. 
Can a good God amuse Himself by the embarrass- 
ment of His creatures ? A God who enjoys a power 
which nothing in the world can resist, can He ap- 
prehend that His intentions could be thwarted ? 
What interest would He have in putting upon us 
enigmas and mysteries ? We are told that man, 
by the weakness of his nature, is not capable of 
comprehending the Divine economy which can be 
to him but a tissue of mysteries ; that God can not 
unveil secrets to him which are beyond his reach. 
In this case, I reply, that man is not made to trouble 
himself with Divine economy, that this economy 
can not interest him in the least, that he has no 


Every Sect Thinks all Others Foolish . 153 


need of mysteries which he can not understand ; 
finally, that a mysterious religion is not made for 
him, any more than an eloquent discourse is made 
for a flock of sheep. 

CXIV. — A UNIVERSAL GOD SHOULD HAVE RE- 
VEALED A UNIVERSAL RELIGION. 

Divinity has revealed itself in the different parts 
of our globe in a manner of such little uniformity, 
that in matters of religion men look upon each 
other with hatred and disdain. The partisans of 
the different sects see each other very ridiculous 
and foolish. The most respected mysteries in one 
religion are laughable for another. God, having 
revealed Himself to men, ought at least to speak in 
the same language to all, and relieve their weak 
minds of the embarrassment of seeking what can 
be the religion which truly emanated from Him, or 
what is the most agreeable form of worship in His 
eyes. 

A universal God ought to have revealed a uni- 
versal religion. By what fatality are so many dif- 
ferent religions found on the earth ? Which is the 
true one amongst the great number of those of 
which each one pretends to be the right one, to the 
exclusion of all the others? We have every reason 
to believe that not one of them enjoys this advan- 
tage. The divisions and the disputes about opin- 
ions are indubitable signs of the uncertainty and of 
the obscurity of the principles which they profess. 


1 54 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 


CXV. — THE PROOF THAT RELIGION IS NOT NEC- 
ESSARY, IS THAT IT IS UNINTELLIGIBLE. 

If religion was necessary to all men, it ought to 
be intelligible to all men. If this religion was the 
most important thing for them, the goodness of 
God, it seems, ought to make it for them the clear- 
est, the most evident, and the best demonstrated 
of all things. Is it not astonishing to see that this 
matter, so essential to the salvation of mortals, is 
precisely the one which they understand the least, 
and about which, during so many centuries, their 
doctors have disputed the most? Never have 
priests, of even the same sect, come to an agree- 
ment among themselves about the manner of un- 
derstanding the wishes of a God who has truly re- 
vealed Himself to them. The world which we in- 
habit can be compared to a public place, in whose 
different parts several charlatans are placed, each 
one straining himself to attract customers by de- 
preciating the remedies offered by his competitors. 
Each stand has its purchasers, who are persuaded 
that their empiric alone possesses the good reme- 
dies ; notwithstanding the continual use which they 
make of them, they do not perceive that they are 
no better, or that they are just as sick as those who 
run after the charlatans of another stand. Devo- 
tion is a disease of the imagination, contracted in 
infancy ; the devotee is a hypochondriac, who in- 
creases his disease by the use of remedies. The 
wise man takes none of it ; he follows a good regi- 
men and leaves the rest to nature. 


All Religions are Ridiculed. 


55 


CXVl. — ALL RELIGIONS ARE RIDICULED BY THOSE 
OF OPPOSITE THOUGH EQUALLY INSANE BE- 
LIEF. 

Nothing appears more ridiculous in the eyes of a 
sensible man than for one denomination to criticise 
another whose creed is equally foolish. A Chris- 
tian thinks that the Koran, the Divine revelation 
announced by Mohammed, is but a tissue of imper- 
tinent dreams and impostures injurious to Divinity. 
The Mohammedan, on his side, treats the Christian 
as an idolater and a dog ; he sees but absurdities in 
his religion ; he imagines he has the right to con- 
quer his country and force him, sword in hand, to 
accept the faith of his Divine prophet ; he believes 
especially that nothing is more impious or more 
unreasonable than to worship a man or to believe 
in the Trinity. The Protestant Christian, who with- 
out scruple worships a man, and who believes firmly 
in the inconceivable mystery of the Trinity, ridi- 
cules the Catholic Christian because the latter be- 
lieves in the mystery of the transubstantiation. He 
treats him as a fool, as ungodly and idolatrous, be- 
cause he kneels to worship the bread in which he 
believes he sees the God of the universe. All the 
Christian denominations agree in considering as 
folly the incarnation of the God of the Indies, 
Vishnu. They contend that the only true incarna- 
tion is that of Jesus, Son of the God of the universe 
and of the wife of a carpenter. The theist, who 
calls himself a votary of natural religion, is satisfied 
to acknowledge a God of whom he has no concep- 


156 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

tion ; indulges himself in jesting upon other mys- 
teries taught by all the religions of the world. 

CXVII. — OPINION OF A CELEBRATED THEOLOGIAN. 

Did not a famous theologian recognize the ab- 
surdity of admitting the existence of a God and 
arresting His course? “ To us/' he said, “who be- 
lieve through faith in a true God, an individual 
substance, there ought to be no trouble in believ- 
ing everything else. This first mystery, which is 
no small matter of itself, once admitted, our reason 
can not suffer violence in admitting all the rest. 
As for myself, it is no more trouble to accept a 
million of things that I do not understand, than to 
believe the first one." 

Is there anything more contradictory, more im- 
possible, or more mysterious, than the creation of 
matter by an immaterial Being, who Himself immu- 
table, causes the continual changes that we see in 
the world ? Is there anything more incompatible 
with all the ideas of common sense than to believe 
that a good, wise, equitable, and powerful Being 
presides over nature and directs Himself the move- 
ments of a world which is filled with follies, mis- 
eries, crimes, and disorders, which He could have 
foreseen, and by a single word could have prevented 
or made to disappear? Finally, as soon as we 
admit a Being so contradictory as the theological 
God, what right have we to refuse to accept the 
most improbable fables, the most astonishing mira- 
cles, the most profound mysteries ? 


The Deist's God Contradictory. 157 

CXVIII.— THE DEIST’S GOD IS NO LESS CONTRA- 
DICTORY, NO LESS FANCIFUL, THAN THE THE- 
OLOGIAN’S GOD. 

The theist exclaims, “ Be careful not to worship 
the ferocious and strange God of theology ; mine 
is much wiser and better ; He is the Father of men ; 
He is the mildest of Sovereigns; it is He who fills 
the universe with His benefactions ! ” But I will tell 
him, do you not see that everything in this world 
contradicts the good qualities which you attribute 
to your God ? In the numerous family of this mild 
Father I see but unfortunate ones. Under the 
empire of this just Sovereign I see crime victorious 
and virtue in distress. Among these benefactions, 
which you boast of, and which your enthusiasm 
alone sees, I see a multitude of evils of all kinds, 
upon which you obstinately close your eyes. Com- 
pelled to acknowledge that your good God, in con- 
tradiction with Himself, distributes with the same 
hand good and evil, you will find yourself obliged, 
in order to justify Him, to send me, as the priests 
would, to the other life. Invent, then, another 
God than the one of theology, because your God 
is as contradictory as its God is. A good God who 
does evil or who permits it to be done, a God full 
of equity and in an empire where innocence is so 
often oppressed ; a perfect God who produces but 
imperfect and wretched works; such a God and 
His conduct, are they not as great mysteries as that 
of the incarnation? You blush, you say, for your 
fellow beings who are persuaded that the God of 
the universe could change Himself into a man and 


158 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

die upon a cross in a corner of Asia. You consider 
the ineffable mystery of the Trinity very absurd 
Nothing appears more ridiculous to you than a God 
who changes Himself into bread and who is eaten 
every day in a thousand different places. 

Well! are all these mysteries any more shocking 
to reason than a God who punishes and rewards 
men’s actions ? Man, according to your views, is he 
free or not ? In either case your God, if He has the 
shadow of justice, can neither punish him nor re- 
ward him. If man is free, it is God who made him 
free to act or not to act ; it is God, then, who is 
the primitive cause of all his actions ; in punishing 
man for his faults, He would punish him for having 
done that which He gave him the liberty to do. 
If man is not free to act otherwise than he does, 
would not God be the most unjust of beings to 
punish him for the faults which he could not help 
committing? Many persons are struck with the 
detail of absurdities with which all religions of the 
world are filled ; but they have not the courage to 
seek for the source whence these absurdities neces- 
sarily sprung. They do not see that a God full of 
contradictions, of oddities, of incompatible quali- 
ties, either inflaming or nursing the imagination of 
men, could create but a long line of idle fancies. 

CXIX.— WE DO NOT PROVE AT ALL THE EXIST- 
ENCE OF A GOD BY SAYING THAT IN ALL 
AGES EVERY NATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED 
SOME KIND OF DIVINITY. 

They believe, to silence those who deny the ex- 


We do not Prove the Existence of God. 159 

istence of a God, by telling them that all men, in 
all ages and in all centuries, have believed in some 
kind of a God ; that there is no people on the earth 
who have not believed in an invisible and powerful 
being, whom they made the object of their worship 
and of their veneration ; finally, that there is no na- 
tion, no matter how benighted we may suppose it 
to be, that is not persuaded of the existence of some 
intelligence superior to human nature. But can the 
belief of all men change an error into truth? A 
celebrated philosopher has said with all reason : 
“ Neither general tradition nor the unanimous con- 
sent of all men could place any injunction upon 
truth.”* Another wise man said before him, that 
“ an army of philosophers would not be sufficient 
to change the nature of error and to make it truth.”f 
There was a time when all men believed that the 
sun revolved around the earth, while the latter re- 
mained motionless in the center of the whole sys- 
tem of the universe ; it is scarcely more than two 
hundred years since this error was refuted. There was 
a time when nobody would believe in the existence 
of antipodes, and when they persecuted those who 
had the courage to sustain it ; to-day no learned 
man dares to doubt it. All nations of the world, 
except some men less credulous than others, still 
believe in sorcerers, ghosts, apparitions, spirits ; no 
sensible man imagines himself obliged to adopt 
these follies; but the most sensible people feel 
obliged to believe in a universal Spirit ! 


* Bayle. 


t AverroSs, 


i6o 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


CXX. — ALL THE GODS ARE OF A BARBAROUS OR- 
IGIN ; ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANTIQUE MONU- 
MENTS OF IGNORANCE, SUPERSTITION, AND 
FEROCITY ; AND MODERN RELIGIONS ARE 
BUT ANCIENT FOLLIES REVIVED. 

All the Gods worshiped by men have a barba- 
rous origin ; they were visibly imagined by stupid 
nations, or were presented by ambitious and cunning 
legislators to simple and benighted people, who had 
neither the capacity nor the courage to examine 
properly the object which, by means of terrors, 
they were made to worship. In examining closely 
the God which we see adored still in our days by 
the most civilized nations, we are compelled to ac- 
knowledge that He has evidently barbarous feat- 
ures. To be barbarous is to recognize no right but 
force ; it is being cruel to excess ; it is but follow- 
ing one’s own caprice ; it is a lack of foresight, of 
prudence, and reason. Nations, who believe your- 
selves civilized ! do you not perceive this frightful 
character of the God to whom you offer your in- 
cense? The pictures which are drawn of Divinity, 
are they not visibly borrowed from the implacable, 
jealous, vindictive, blood-thirsty, capricious, incon- 
siderate humor of man, who has not yet cultivated 
his reason? Oh, men! you worship but a great 
savage, whom you consider as a model to follow, 
as an amiable master, as a perfect sovereign. 

The religious opinions of men in every country 
are antique and durable monuments of ignorance 
credulity, of the terrors and the ferocity of their 


All Religious Ceremonies Barbarous. 161 

ancestors. Every barbarian is a child thirsting for 
the wonderful, which he imbibes with pleasure, and 
who never reasons upon that which he finds proper 
to excite his imagination ; his ignorance of the 
ways of nature makes him attribute to spirits, to 
enchantments, to magic, all that appears to him 
extraordinary ; in his eyes his priests are sorcerers, 
in whom he supposes an Almighty power ; before 
whom his confused reason humiliates itself, whose 
oracles are for him infallible decrees, to contradict 
which would be dangerous. In matters of relig- 
ion the majority of men have remained in their 
primitive barbarity. Modern religions are but 
follies of old times rejuvenated or presented in 
some new form. If the ancient barbarians have 
worshiped mountains, rivers, serpents, trees, fe- 
tiches of every kind ; if the wise Egyptians wor- 
shiped crocodiles, rats, onions, do we not see na- 
tions who believe themselves wiser than they, wor- 
ship with reverence a bread, into which they imag- 
ine that the enchantments of their priests cause the 
Divinity to descend? Is not the God-bread the 
fetich of many Christian nations, as little rational 
in this point as that of the most barbarous nations ? 

CXXI. — ALL RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES BEAR THE 
SEAL OF STUPIDITY OR BARBARITY. 

In all times the ferocity, the stupidity, the folly 
of savage men were shown in religious customs 
which were often cruel and extravagant. A spirit 
of barbarity has come down to our days ; it intrudes 
itself into the religions which are followed by the 


1 62 Co 7 nmon Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

most civilized nations. Do we not still see human 
victims offered to Divinity? In order to appease 
the wrath of a God whom we suppose as fero- 
cious, as jealous, as vindictive, as a savage, do not 
sanguinary laws cause the destruction of those who 
are believed to have displeased Him by their way 
of thinking? 

Modern nations, at the instigation of their priests, 
have even excelled the atrocious folly of the most 
barbarous nations ; at least do we not find that it 
never entered into a savage’s mind to torment for 
the sake of opinions, to meddle in thought, to 
trouble men for the invisible actions of their brains ? 

When we see polished and wise nations, such as 
the English, French, German, etc., notwithstanding 
all their enlightenment, continue to kneel before 
the barbarous God of the Jews, that is to say, of 
the most stupid, the most credulous, the most sav- 
age, the most unsocial nation which ever was on 
the earth ; when we see these enlightened nations 
divide themselves into sects, tear one another, hate 
and despise each other for opinions, equally ridicu- 
lous, upon the conduct and the intentions of this ir- 
rational God ; when we see intelligent persons oc- 
cupy themselves foolishly in meditating on the 
wishes of this capricious and foolish God ; we are 
tempted to exclaim, “ Oh, men ! you are still sav- 
ages ! Oh, men ! you are but children in the mat- 
ter of religion ! ” 


Ancient Religious Opinion Suspicious . 163 


CXXII. — THE MORE ANCIENT AND GENERAL A 
RELIGIOUS OPINION IS, THE GREATER THE 
REASON FOR SUSPECTING IT. 

Whoever has formed true ideas of the ignorance, 
credulity, negligence, and sottishness of common peo- 
ple, will always regard their religious opinions with 
the greater suspicion for their being generally estab- 
lished. The majority of men examine nothing ; they 
allow themselves to be blindly led by custom and 
authority; their religious opinions are specially those 
which they have the least courage and capacity to 
examine ; as they do not understand anything about 
them, they are compelled to be silent or put an 
end to their reasoning. Ask the common man if 
he believes in God. He will be surprised that you 
could doubt it. Then ask him what he under- 
stands by the word God. You will confuse him; 
you will perceive at once that he is incapable of 
forming any real idea of this word which he so oft- 
en repeats ; he will tell you that God is God, and 
you will find that he knows neither what he thinks 
of Him, nor the motives which he has for believing 
in Him. 

All nations speak of a God ; but do they agree 
upon this God ? No ! Well, difference of opinion 
does not serve as evidence, but is a sign of uncer- 
tainty and obscurity. Does the same man always 
agree with himself in his ideas of God ? No ! This 
idea varies with the vicissitudes of his life. This 
is another sign of uncertainty. Men always agree 
with other men and with themselves upon demon- 


164 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

strated truths, regardless of the position in which 
they find themselves ; except the insane, all agree 
that two and two make four, that the sun shines, 
that the whole is greater than any one of its parts, 
that justice is a benefaction, that we must be be- 
nevolent to deserve the love of men, that injustice 
and cruelty are incompatible with goodness. Do 
they agree in the same way if they speak of God ? 
All that they think or say of Him is immediately 
contradicted by the effects which they wish to at- 
tribute to Him. Tell several artists to paint a chi- 
mera, each of them will form different ideas of it, 
and will paint it differently ; you will find no re- 
semblance in the features each of them will have 
given to a portrait whose model exists nowhere. 
In painting God, do any of the theologians of the 
world represent Him otherwise than as a great 
chimera, upon whose features they never agree, 
each one arranging it according to his style, which 
has its origin but in his own brain ? There are no 
two individuals in the world who have or can have 
the same ideas of their God. 

CXXIII. — SKEPTICISM IN THE MATTER OF RELIG- 
ION, CAN BE THE EFFECT OF BUT A SUPER- 
FICIAL EXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PRIN- 
CIPLES. 

Perhaps it would be more truthful to say, that 
all men are either skeptics or atheists, than to pre- 
tend that they are firmly convinced of the existence 
of a God. How can we be assured of the existence 
of a being whom we never have been able to exam- 


Examination of Theological Principles. 165 

ine, of whom it is impossible to form any perma- 
nent idea, whose different effects upon ourselves 
prevent us from forming an invariable judgment, 
of whom no idea can be uniform in two different 
brains ? How can we claim to be completely per- 
suaded of the existence of a being to whom we are 
constantly obliged to attribute a conduct opposed 
to the ideas which we had tried to form of it ? Is 
it possible firmly to believe what we can not con- 
ceive ? In believing thus, are we not adhering to 
the opinions of others without having one of our 
own ? The priests regulate the belief of the vulgar ; 
but do not these priests themselves acknowledge 
that God is incomprehensible to them ? Let us 
conclude, then, that the conviction of the existence 
of a God is not as general as it is affirmed to be. 

To be a skeptic, is to lack the motives necessary 
to establish a judgment. In view of the proofs 
which seem to establish, and of the arguments 
which combat the existence of a God, some per- 
sons prefer to doubt and to suspend their judg- 
ment ; but at the bottom, this uncertainty is the 
result of an insufficient examination. Is it, then, 
possible to doubt evidence ? Sensible people de- 
ride, and with reason, an absolute pyrrhonism, and 
even consider it impossible. A man who could 
doubt his own existence, or that of the sun, would 
appear very ridiculous, or would be suspected of 
reasoning in bad faith. Is it less extravagant to 
have uncertainties about the non-existence of an 
evidently impossible being ? Is it more absurd to 
doubt of one's own existence, than to hesitate upon 


1 66 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier . 

the impossibility of a being whose qualities de- 
stroy each other ? Do we find more probabilities 
for believing in a spiritual being than for believing 
in the existence of a stick without two ends ? Is 
the notion of an infinitely good and powerful being 
who permits an infinity of evils, less absurd or less 
impossible than that of a square triangle ? Let us 
conclude, then, that religious skepticism can be but 
the effect of a superficial examination of theologi- 
cal principles, which are in a perpetual contradic- 
tion of the clearest and best demonstrated princi- 
ples! To doubt is to deliberate upon the judgment 
which we should pass. Skepticism is but a state 
of indecision which results from a superficial ex- 
amination of subjects. Is it possible to be skeptical 
in the matter of religion when we design to return 
to its principles, and look closely into the idea of 
the God who serves as its foundation ? Doubt 
arises ordinarily from laziness, weakness, indiffer- 
ence, or incapacity. To doubt, for many people, is 
to dread the trouble of examining things to which 
one attaches but little interest. Although religion 
is presented to men as the most important thing 
for them in this world as well as in the other, skep- 
ticism and doubt on this subject can be for the mind 
but a disagreeable state, and offers but a comfort- 
able cushion. No man who has not the courage 
to contemplate without prejudice the God upon 
whom every religion is founded, can know what re- 
ligion to accept ; he does not know what to believe 
and what not to believe, to accept or to reject, 
what to hope or fear ; finally, he is incompetent to 
judge for himself. 


Revelation Refuted. 


167 


Indifference upon religion can not be confounded 
with skepticism ; this indifference itself is founded 
upon the assurance or upon the probability which 
we find in believing that religion is not made to 
interest us. The persuasion which we have that a 
thing which is presented to us as very important, is 
not so, or is but indifferent, supposes a sufficient 
examination of the thing, without which it would 
be impossible to have this persuasion. Those who 
call themselves skeptics in regard to the fundamen- 
tal points of religion, are generally but idle and lazy 
men, who are incapable of examining them. 

CXXIV.— REVELATION REFUTED. 

In all parts of the world, we are assured that God 
revealed Himself. What did He teach men ? Does 
He prove to them evidently that He exists? Does 
He tell them where He resides ? Does He teach 
them what He is, or of what His essence consists? 
Does He explain to them clearly His intentions 
and His plan ? What He says of this plan, does it 
agree with the effects which we see? No! He 
informs us only that “He is the One that is,”* 
that He is an invincible God, that His ways are 
ineffable, that He becomes furious as soon as one 
has the temerity to penetrate His decrees, or to 
consult reason in order to judge of Him or His 
works. Does the revealed conduct of God corre- 
spond with the magnificent ideas which are given 
to us of His wisdom, goodness, justice, of His 


* I am that I am, saith the Lord. 


1 68 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

omnipotence? Not at all; in every revelation this 
conduct shows a partial, capricious being, at least, 
good to His favorite people, an enemy to all others. 
If He condescends to show Himself to some men, 
He takes care to keep all the others in invincible 
ignorance of His divine intentions. Does not every 
special revelation announce an unjust, partial, and 
malicious God ? 

Are the revealed wishes of a God capable of 
striking us by the sublime reason or the wisdom 
which they contain ? Do they tend to the happi- 
ness of the people to whom Divinity has declared 
them ? Examining the Divine wishes, I find in 
them, in all countries, but whimsical ordinances, 
ridiculous precepts, ceremonies of which we do not 
understand the aim, puerile practices, principles of 
conduct unworthy of the Monarch of Nature, offer- 
ings, sacrifices, expiations, useful, in fact, to the 
ministers of God, but very onerous to the rest of 
mankind. I find also, that they often have a ten- 
dency to render men unsocial, disdainful, intoler- 
ant, quarrelsome, unjust, inhuman toward all those 
who have not received either the same revelations 
as they, or the same ordinances, or the same favors 
from Heaven. 

CXXV.— WHERE, THEN, IS THE PROOF THAT GOD 
DID EVER SHOW HIMSELF TO MEN OR SPEAK 
TO THEM? 

Are the precepts of morality as announced by 
Divinity truly Divine, or superior to those which 
every rational man could imagine ? They are Di- 


Nothing Establishes the Truth of Miracles. 169 

vine only because it is impossible for the human 
mind to see their utility. Tneir virtue consists in 
a total renunciation of human nature, in a volun- 
tary oblivion of one’s reason, in a holy hatred of 
self ; finally, these sublime precepts show us per- 
fection in a conduct cruel to ourselves and perfectly 
useless to others. 

How did God show Himself? Did He Himself 
promulgate His laws? Did He speak to men with 
His own mouth ? I am told that God did not 
show Himself to a whole nation, but that He em- 
ployed always the organism of a few favored per- 
sons, who took the care to teach and to explain 
His intentions to the unlearned. It was never per- 
mitted to the people to go to the sanctuary ; the 
ministers of the Gods always alone had the right 
to report to them what transpired. 

CXXV1.— NOTHING ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OF 
MIRACLES. 

If, in the economy of all Divine revelations, I am 
unable to recognize either the wisdom, the goodness, 
or the equity of a God ; if I suspect deceit, ambition, 
selfish designs in the great personages who have 
interposed between Heaven and us, I am assured that 
God has confirmed, by splendid miracles, the mis- 
sion of those who have spoken for Him. But was it 
not much easier to show Himself, and to explain for 
Himself? On the other hand, if I have the curi- 
osity to examine these miracles, I find that they 
are tales void of probability, related by suspicious 
people, who had the greatest interest in making 


170 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

others believe that they were sent from the Most 
High. 

What witnesses are referred to in order to make us 
believe incredible miracles ? They call as witnesses 
stupid people, who have ceased to exist for thou- 
sands of years, and who, even if they could attest 
the miracles in question, would be suspected of 
having been deceived by their own imagination, 
and of permitting themselves to be seduced by 
the illusions which skillful impostors performed be- 
fore their eyes. But, you will say, these miracles 
are recorded in books which through constant tra- 
dition have been handed down to us. By whom 
were these books written ? Who are the men who 
have transmitted and perpetuated them ? They 
are either the same people who established these 
religions, or those who have become their adherents 
and their assistants. Thus, in the matter of relig- 
ion, the testimony of interested parties is irrefraga- 
ble and can not be contested ! 

CXXVII. — IF GOD HAD SPOKEN, IT WOULD BE 
STRANGE THAT HE HAD SPOKEN DIFFERENT- 
LY TO ALL THE ADHERENTS OF THE DIFFER- 
ENT SECTS, WHO DAMN EACH OTHER, WHO 
ACCUSE EACH OTHER, WITH REASON, OF SU- 
PERSTITION AND IMPIETY. 

God has spoken differently to each nation of the 
globe which we inhabit. The Indian does not be- 
lieve one word of what He said to the Chinaman ; 
the Mohammedan considers what He has told to 
the Christian as fables ; the Jew considers the Mo- 


God Speaks Differently to All. 17 1 

hammedan and the Christian as sacrilegious cor- 
ruptors of the Holy Law, which his God has given 
to his fathers. The Christian, proud of his more 
modern revelation, equally damns the Indian and 
the Chinaman, the Mohammedan, and even the 
Jew, whose holy books he holds. Who is wrong 
or right ? Each one exclaims : “ It is I ! ” Every 
one claims the same proofs ; each one speaks of 
his miracles, his saints, his prophets, his mar- 
tyrs. Sensible men answer, that they are all delir- 
ious ; that God has not spoken, if it is true that 
He is a Spirit who has neither mouth nor tongue ; 
that the God of the Universe could, without bor- 
rowing mortal organism, inspire His creatures with 
what He desired them to learn, and that, as they 
are all equally ignorant of what they ought to think 
about God, it is evident that God did not want to 
instruct them. The adherents of the different forms 
of worship which we see established in this world, 
accuse each other of superstition and of ungodli- 
ness. The Christians abhor the superstition of the 
heathen, of the Chinese, of the Mohammedans. The 
Roman Catholics treat the Protestant Christians as 
impious ; the latter incessantly declaim against Ro- 
man superstition. They are all right. To be im- 
pious, is to have unjust opinions about the God 
who is adored ; to be superstitious, is to have 
false ideas of Him. In accusing each other of 
superstition, the different religionists resemble 
humpbacks who taunt each other with their mal- 
formation. 


172 


Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 


CXXVIII. — OBSCURE AND SUSPICIOUS ORIGIN OF 
ORACLES. 

The oracles which the Deity has revealed to the 
nations through His different mediums, are they 
clear ? Alas ! there are not two men who under- 
stand them alike. Those who explain them to 
others do not agree among themselves ; in order 
to make them clear, they have recourse to interpre- 
tations, to commentaries, to allegories, to parables, 
in which is found a mystical sense very different 
from the literal one. Men are needed everywhere 
to explain the wishes of God, who could not or 
would not explain Himself clearly to those whom 
He desired to enlighten. God always prefers to 
use as mediums men who can be suspected of hav- 
ing been deceived themselves, or having reasons to 
deceive others. 

CXXIX.— ABSURDITY OF PRETENDED MIRACLES. 

The founders of all religions have usually proved 
their mission by miracles. But what is a miracle ? 
It is an operation directly opposed to the laws of 
nature. But, according to you, who has made 
these laws ? It is God. Thus your God, who, ac- 
cording to you, has foreseen everything, counter- 
acts the laws which His wisdom had imposed upon 
nature ! These laws were then defective , or at 
least in certain circumstances they were but in ac- 
cordance with the views of this same God, for you 
tell us that He thought He ought to suspend or 
counteract them. 


Absurdity of Pretended Miracles. 


m 


An attempt is made to persuade us that men 
who have been favored by the Most High have re- 
ceived from Him the power to perform miracles ; 
but in order to perform a miracle, it is necessary to 
have the faculty of creating new causes capable of 
producing effects opposed to those which ordinary 
causes can produce. Can we realize how God can 
give to men the inconceivable power of creating 
causes out of nothing? Can it be believed that an 
unchangeable God can communicate to man the 
power to change or rectify His plan, a power which, 
according to His essence, an immutable being can 
not have himself? Miracles, far from doing much 
honor to God, far from proving the Divinity of re- 
ligion, destroy evidently the idea which is given to 
us of God, of His immutability, of His incommuni- 
cable attributes, and even of His omnipotence. 
How can a theologian tell us that a God who em- 
braced at once the whole of His plan, who could 
make but perfect laws, who can change nothing in 
them, should be obliged to employ miracles to make 
His projects successful, or grant to His creatures 
the faculty of performing prodigies, in order to ex- 
ecute His Divine will ? Is it probable that a God 
needs the support of men ? An Omnipotent Being, 
whose wishes are always gratified, a Being who holds 
in His hands the hearts and the minds of His creat- 
ures, needs but to wish, in order to make them be- 
lieve all He desires. 


174 


Common Sense } by Jean Meslier. 


CXXX. — REFUTATION OF PASCAL’S MANNER OF 
REASONING AS TO HOW WE SHOULD JUDGE 
MIRACLES. 

What should we say of religions that based their 
Divinity upon miracles which they themselves cause 
to appear suspicious? How can we place any faith 
in the miracles related in the Holy Books of the 
Christians, where God Himself boasts of hardening 
hearts, of blinding those whom He wishes to ruin ; 
where this God permits wicked spirits and magicians 
to perform as wonderful miracles as those of His 
servants; where it is prophesied that the Anti- 
Christ will have the power to perform miracles ca- 
pable of destroying the faith even of the elect? 
This granted, how can we know whether God 
wants to instruct us or to lay a snare for us? How 
can we distinguish whether the wonders which we 
see, proceed from God or the Devil? Pascal, in 
order to disembarrass us, says very gravely, that 
we must judge the doctrine by miracles, and the 
miracles by the doctrine; that doctrine judges the 
miracles, and the miracles judge the doctrine. If 
there exists a defective and ridiculous circle, it is no 
doubt in this fine reasoning of one of the greatest 
defenders of the Christian religion. Which of all 
the religions in the world does not claim to possess 
the most admirable doctrine, and which does not 
bring to its aid a great number of miracles? 

Is a miracle capable of destroying a demon- 
strated truth? Although a man should have the 
secret of curing all diseases, of making the lame 


Every New Revelation Necessarily False. 175 

to walk, of raising all the dead of a city, of float- 
ing in the air, of arresting the course of the sun 
and of the moon, will he be able to convince me by 
all this that two and two do not make four ; that 
one makes three and that three makes but one ; that 
a God who fills the universe with His immensity, 
could have transformed Himself into the body of a 
Jew; that the eternal can perish like man ; that an 
immutable, foreseeing, and sensible God could have 
changed His opinion upon His religion, and reform 
His own work by a new revelation ? 

CXXXI. — EVEN ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES 
OF THEOLOGY ITSELF, EVERY NEW REVELA- 
TION SHOULD BE REFUTED AS FALSE AND 
IMPIOUS. 

According to the principles of theology itself, 
whether natural or revealed, every new revelation 
ought to be considered false ; every change in a 
religion which had emanated from the Deity ought 
to be refuted as ungodly and blasphemous. Does 
not every reform suppose that God did not know how 
at the start to give His religion the required solidi- 
ty and perfection ? To say that God in giving a first 
law accommodated Himself to the gross ideas of a 
people whom He wished to enlighten, is to pretend 
that God neither could nor would make the people 
whom He enlightened at that time, as reasonable 
as they ought to be to please Him. 

Christianity is an impiety, if it is true that Ju- 
daism as a religion really emanated from a Holy, 
Immutable, Almighty, and Foreseeing God. Christ’s 


i ;6 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

religion implies either defects in the law that God 
Himself gave by Moses, or impotence or malice in 
this God who could not, or would not make the Jews 
as they ought to be to please Him. All religions, 
whether new, or ancient ones reformed, are evident- 
ly founded on the weakness, the inconstancy, the 
imprudence, and the malice of the Deity. 

CXXXII. — EVEN THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS, 
TESTIFIES AGAINST THE TRUTH OF MIRA- 
CLES AND AGAINST THE DIVINE ORIGIN 
WHICH CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS. 

If history informs me that the first apostles, 
founders or reformers of religions, performed great 
miracles, history teaches me also that these reform- 
ing apostles and their adherents have been usually 
despised, persecuted, and put to death as disturb- 
ers of the peace of nations. I am then tempted to 
believe that they have not performed the miracles 
attributed to them. Finally, these miracles should 
have procured to them a great number of disciples 
among those who witnessed them, who ought to 
have prevented the performers from being mal- 
treated. My incredulity increases if I am told that 
the performers of miracles have been cruelly tor- 
mented or slain. How can we believe that mis- 
sionaries, protected by a God, invested with His 
Divine Power, and enjoying the gift of miracles, 
could not perform the simple miracle of escaping 
from the cruelty of their persecutors? 

Persecutions themselves are considered as a con- 
vincing proof in favor of the religion of those who 


The Fanaticism of the Martyrs. 177 

have suffered them ; but a religion which boasts 
of having caused the death of many martyrs, and 
which informs us that its founders have suffered 
for its extension unheard-of torments, can not be 
the religion of a benevolent, equitable, and Al- 
mighty God. A good God would not permit that 
men charged with revealing His will should be mis- 
used. An omnipotent God desiring to found a re- 
ligion, would have employed simpler and less fatal 
means for His most faithful servants. To say that 
God desired that His religion should be sealed by 
blood, is to say that this God is weak, unjust, un- 
grateful, and sanguinary, and that He sacrifices un- 
worthily His missionaries to the interests of His 
ambition. 

CXXXIII. — THE FANATICISM OF THE MARTYRS, 
THE INTERESTED ZEAL OF MISSIONARIES, 
PROVE IN NOWISE THE TRUTH OF RELIGION. 

To die for a religion does not prove it true or 
Divine ; this proves at most that we suppose it to 
be so. An enthusiast in dying proves nothing but 
that religious fanaticism is often stronger than the 
love of life. An impostor can sometimes die with 
courage ; he makes then, as is said, “ a virtue of 
necessity.” We are often surprised and affected at 
the sight of the generous courage and the disinter- 
ested zeal which have led missionaries to preach 
their doctrine at the risk even of suffering the most 
rigorous torments. We draw from this love, which 
is exhibited for the salvation of men, deductions 
favorable to the religion which they have pro- 


1/8 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier . 

claimed ; but in truth this disinterestedness is only 
apparent. “ Nothing ventured, nothing gained ! ” 
A missionary seeks fortune by the aid of his doc- 
trine ; he knows that if he has the good fortune to 
retail his commodity, he will become the absolute 
master of those who accept him as their guide ; he 
is sure to become the object of their care, of their 
respect, of their veneration ; he has every reason 
to believe that he will be abundantly provided for. 
These are the true motives which kindle the zeal 
and the charity of so many preachers and mission- 
aries who travel all over the world. 

To die for an opinion, proves no more the truth 
or the soundness of this opinion than to die in a 
battle proves the right of the prince, for whose 
benefit so many people are foolish enough to sacri- 
fice themselves. The courage of a martyr, animated 
by the idea of Paradise, is not any more supernat- 
ural than the courage of a warrior, inspired with 
the idea of glory or held to duty by the fear of 
disgrace. What difference do we find between an 
Iroquois who sings while he is burned by a slow 
fire, and the martyr St. Lawrence, who while upon 
the gridiron insults his tyrant ? 

The preachers of a new doctrine succumb be- 
cause they are not the strongest ; the apostles 
usually practice a perilous business, whose conse- 
quences they can foresee ; their courageous death 
does not prove any more the truth of their princi- 
ples or their own sincerity, than the violent death 
of an ambitious man or a brigand proves that they 
had the right to trouble society, or that they be- 


Reason is Preferable to Faith. 179 

lieved themselves authorized to do it. A mission- 
ary’s profession has been always flattering to his 
ambition, and has enabled him to subsist at the 
expense of the common people ; these advantages 
have been sufficient to make him forget the dangers 
which are connected with it. 

CXXXIV. — THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD AN EN- 
EMY OF COMMON SENSE AND OF ENLIGHTEN- 
MENT. 

You tell us, O theologians! that “what is folly 
in the eyes of men, is wisdom before God, who is 
pleased to confound the wisdom of the wise.” But 
do you not pretend that human wisdom is a gift 
from Heaven? In telling us that this wisdom dis- 
pleases God, is but folly in His eyes, and that He 
wishes to confound it, you proclaim that your God 
is but the friend of unenlightened people, and that 
He makes to sensible people a fatal gift, for which 
this perfidious Tyrant promises to punish them 
cruelly some day. Is it not very strange that we 
can not be the friend of your God but by declaring 
ourselves the enemy of reason and common sense ? 

CXXXV.— FAITH IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH REA- 
SON, AND REASON IS PREFERABLE TO FAITH. 

Faith, according to theologians, is consent with- 
out evidence. From this it follows that religion 
exacts that we should firmly believe, without evi- 
dence, in propositions which are often improbable 
or opposed to reason. But to challenge reason as 
a judge of faith, is it not acknowledging that reason 


180 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

can not agree with faith? As the ministers of re- 
ligion have determined to banish reason, they must 
have felt the impossibility of reconciling reason 
with faith, which is visibly but a blind submission 
to those priests whose authority, in many minds, 
appears to be of a greater importance than evidence 
itself, and preferable to the testimony of the senses. 
“ Sacrifice your reason ; give up experience ; dis- 
trust the testimony of your senses ; submit without 
examination to all that is given to you as coming 
from Heaven.” This is the usual language of all 
the priests of the world ; they do not agree upon 
any point, except in the necessity of never reason- 
ing when they present principles to us which they 
claim as the most important to our happiness. 

I will not sacrifice my reason, because this reason 
alone enables me to distinguish good from evil, the 
true from the false. If, as you pretend, my reason 
comes from God, I will never believe that a God 
whom you call so good, had ever given me reason 
but as a snare, in order to lead me to perdition. 
Priests ! in crying down reason, do you not see that 
you slander your God, who, as you assure us, has 
given us this reason ? 

I will not give up experience , because it is a 
much better guide than imagination, or than the 
authority of the guides whom they wish to give 
me. This experience teaches me that enthusiasm 
and interest can blind and mislead them, and that 
the authority of experience ought to have more 
weight upon my mind than the suspicious tes- 
timony of many men whom I know to be capable 


It is Absurd to Substitute Faith for Reason. 1 8 1 

of deceiving themselves, or very much interested in 
deceiving others. 

I will not distrust my senses. I do not ignore the 
fact that they can sometimes lead me into error ; but 
on the other hand, I know that they do not deceive 
me always. I know very well that the eye shows 
the sun much smaller than it really is; but experi- 
ence, which is only the repeated application of the 
senses, teaches me that objects continually diminish 
by reason of their distance ; it is by these means 
that I reach the conclusion that the sun is much 
larger than the earth ; it is thus that my senses 
suffice to rectify the hasty judgments which they 
induced me to form. In warning me to doubt the 
testimony of my senses, you destroy for me the 
proofs of all religion. If men can be dupes of their 
imagination, if their senses are deceivers, why 
would you have me believe in the miracles which 
made an impression upon the deceiving senses of 
our ancestors? If my senses are faithless guides, 
I learn that I should not have faith even in the 
miracles which I might see performed under my 
own eyes. 

CXXXVI. — HOW ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS IS THE 
SOPHISTRY OF THOSE WHO WISH TO SUBSTI- 
TUTE FAITH FOR REASON. 

You tell me continually that the “ truths of re- 
ligion are beyond reason.” Do you not admit, then, 
that these truths are not made for reasonable be- 
ings? To pretend that reason can deceive us, is 
to say that truth can be false, that usefulness can 


182 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


be injurious. Is reason anything else but the 
knowledge of the useful and the true? Besides, 
as we have but our reason, which is more or less 
exercised, and our senses, such as they are, to lead 
us in this life, to claim that reason is an unsafe 
guide, and that our senses are deceivers, is to tell 
us that our errors are necessary, that our ignorance 
is invincible, and that, without extreme injustice, 
God can not punish us for having followed the 
only guides which He desired to give us. To pre- 
tend that we are obliged to believe in things which 
are beyond our reason, is an assertion as ridiculous 
as to say that God would compel us to fly without 
wings. To claim that there are objects on which 
reason should not be consulted, is to say that in 
the most important affairs, we must consult but 
imagination, or act by chance. 

Our Doctors of Divinity tell us that we ought to 
sacrifice our reason to God ; but what motives can 
we have for sacrificing our reason to a being who 
gives us but useless gifts, which He does not in- 
tend that we should make use of? What confi- 
dence can we place in a God who, according to our 
Doctors themselves, is wicked enough to harden 
hearts, to strike us with blindness, to place snares 
in our way, to lead us into temptation? Finally, 
how can we place confidence in the ministers of 
this God, who, in order to guide us more conven- 
iently, command us to close our eyes ? 


The Most Important Thing for Man . 183 

CXXXVII.— HOW PRETEND THAT MAN OUGHT TO 
BELIEVE VERBAL TESTIMONY ON WHAT IS 
CLAIMED TO BE THE MOST IMPOR1 ANT THING 
FOR HIM? 

Men persuade themselves that religion is the 
most serious affair in the world for them, while it 
is the very thing which they least examine for 
themselves. If the question arises in the purchase 
of land, of a house, of the investment of money, of 
a transaction, or of some kind of an agreement, you 
will see each one examine everything with care, 
take the greatest precautions, weigh all the words 
of a document, to beware of any surprise or impo- 
sition. It is not the same with religion ; each one 
accepts it at hazard, and believes it upon verbal 
testimony, without taking the trouble to examine 
it. Two causes seem to concur in sustaining men 
in the negligence and the thoughtlessness which 
they exhibit when the question comes up of ex- 
amining their religious opinions. The first one is, 
the hopelessness of penetrating the obscurity by 
which every religion is surrounded ; even in its 
first principles, it has only a tendency to repel in- 
dolent minds, who see in it but chaos, to penetrate 
which, they judge impossible. The second is, that 
each one is afraid to incommode himself by the 
severe precepts which everybody admires in the 
theory, and which few persons take the trouble of 
pra:ticing. Many people preserve their religion 
like old family titles which they have never taken 
the trouble to examine minutely, but which they 
place in their archives in case they need them. 


1 84 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

CXXXVIII. — FAITH TAKES ROOT BUT IN WEAK, 
IGNORANT, OR INDOLENT MINDS. 

The disciples of Pythagoras had an implicit faith 
in their Master’s doctrine: “He HAS SAID it!” 
was for them the solution of all problems. The 
majority of men act with as little reason. A cu- 
rate, a priest, an ignorant monk, will become in the 
matter of religion the master of one’s thoughts. 
Faith relieves the weakness of the human mind, 
for whom application is commonly a very painful 
work ; it is much easier to rely upon others than 
to examine for one’s self ; examination being slow 
and difficult, it is usually unpleasant to ignorant 
and stupid minds as well as to very ardent ones ; 
this is, no doubt, why faith finds so many partisans. 

The less enlightenment and reason men possess, 
the more zeal they exhibit for their religion. In 
all the religious factions, women, aroused by their 
directors, exhibit very great zeal in opinions of 
which it is evident they have not the least idea. 
In theological quarrels people rush like a ferocious 
beast upon all those against whom their priest 
wishes to excite them. Profound ignorance, unlim- 
ited credulity, a very weak head, an irritated imagi- 
nation, these are the materials of which devotees, 
zealots, fanatics, and saints are made. How can 
we make those people understand reason who al- 
low themselves to be guided without examining 
anything? The devotees and common people are, 
in the hands of their guides, only automatons which 
they move at their fancy. 


One True Religion is an Absurdity. 185 


CXXXIX. — TO TEACH THAT THERE EXISTS ONE 
TRUE RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY, AND A 
CAUSE OF MUCH TROUBLE AMONG THE NA- 
TIONS. 

Religion is a thing of custom and fashion ; we 
must do as others do. But, among the many relig- 
ions in the world, which one ought we to choose ? 
This examination would be too long and too pain- 
ful ; we must then hold to the faith of our fathers, 
to that of our country, or to that of the prince, 
who, possessing power, must be the best. Chance 
alone decides the religion of a man and of a people. 
The French would be to-day as good Mussulmen as 
they are Christians, if their ancestors had not re- 
pulsed the efforts of the Saracens. If we judge of 
the intentions of Providence by the events and the 
revolutions of this world, we are compelled to be- 
lieve that it is quite indifferent about the different 
religions which exist on earth. During thousands 
of years Paganism, Polytheism, and Idolatry have 
been the religions of the world ; we are assured to- 
day, that during this period the most flourishing 
nations had not the least idea of the Deity, an 
idea which is claimed, however, to be so important 
to all men. The Christians pretend that, with the 
exception of the Jewish people, that is to say, a 
handful of unfortunate beings, the whole human 
race lived in utter ignorance of its duties toward 
God, and had but imperfect ideas of Divine majesty. 
Christianity, offshoot of Judaism, which was very 
humble in its obscure origin, became powerful and 


1 86 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

cruel under the Christian emperors, who, driven by 
a holy zeal, spread it marvelously in their empire 
by sword and fire, and founded it upon the ruins 
of overthrown Paganism. Mohammed and his suc- 
cessors, aided by Providence, or by their victorious 
arms, succeeded in a short time in expelling the 
Christian religion from a part of Asia, Africa, and 
even of Europe itself ; the Gospel was compelled to 
surrender to the Koran. In all the factions or sects 
which during a great number of centuries have 
lacerated the Christians, “ The REASON OF THE 
STRONGEST WAS ALWAYS THE BEST ; ” the arms 
and the will of the princes alone decided upon the 
most useful doctrine for the salvation of the na- 
tions. Could we not conclude by this, either that 
the Deity takes but little interest in the religion 
of men, or that He declares Himself always in 
favor of opinions which best suit the Authorities of 
the earth, in order that He can change His systems 
as soon as they take a notion to change ? 

A king of Macassar, tired of the idolatry of his 
fathers, took a notion one day to leave it. The 
monarch’s council deliberated for a long time to 
know whether they should consult Christian or Mo- 
hammedan Doctors. In the impossibility of find- 
ing out which was the better of the two religions, 
!t was resolved to send at the same time for the 
nissionaries of both, and to accept the doctrine of 
hose who would have the advantage of arriving 
rirst. They did not doubt that God, who disposes of 
events, would thus Himself explain His will. Mo- 
hammed’s missionaries having been more diligent, 


One True Religion is an Absurdity . 187 

the king with his people submitted to the law which 
he had imposed upon himself ; the missionaries of 
Christ were dismissed by default of their God, who 
did not permit them to arrive early enough. God 
evidently consents that chance should decide the 
religion of nations. 

Those who govern, always decide the religion of 
the people. The true religion is but the religion 
of the prince ; the true God is the God whom the 
prince wishes them to worship ; the will of the 
priests who govern the prince, always becomes the 
will of God. A jester once said, with reason, that 
“ the true faith is always the one which has on its 
side ‘ the prince and the executioner.’ ” 

Emperors and executioners for a long time sus- 
tained the Gods of Rome against the God of the 
Christians; the latter having won over to their 
side the emperors, their soldiers and their execu- 
tioners succeeded in suppressing the worship of the 
Roman Gods. Mohammed’s God succeeded in ex- 
pelling the Christian’s God from a large part of the 
countries which He formerly occupied. In the 
eastern part of Asia, there is a large country which 
is very flourishing, very productive, thickly popula- 
ted, and governed by such wise laws, that the most 
savage conquerors adopted them with respect. It 
is China ! With the exception of Christianity, which 
was banished as dangerous, they followed their own 
superstitious ideas; while the mandarins or magis- 
trates, undeceived long ago about the popular re- 
ligion, do not trouble themselves in regard to it, 
except to watch over it, that the bonzes or priests 


1 88 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

do not use this religion to disturb the peace of the 
State. However, we do not see that Providence 
withholds its benefactions from a nation whose 
chiefs take so little interest in the worship which is 
offered to it. The Chinese enjoy, on the contrary, 
blessings and a peace worthy of being envied by 
many nations which religion divides, ravages, and 
often destroys. We can not reasonably expect to 
deprive a people of its follies ; but we can hope to 
cure of their follies those who govern the people ; 
these will then prevent the follies of the people 
from becoming dangerous. Superstition is never 
to be feared except when it has the support of 
princes and soldiers ; it is only then that it be- 
comes cruel and sanguinary. Every sovereign who 
assumes the protection of a sect or of a religious 
faction, usually becomes the tyrant of other sects, 
and makes himself the must cruel perturbator in 
his kingdom. 

CXL. — RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY TO MORALITY 
AND TO VIRTUE. 

We are constantly told, and a good many sensi- 
ble persons come to believe it, that religion is 
necessary to restrain men ; that without it there 
would be no check upon the people ; that morality 
and virtue are intimately connected with it : “ The 
fear of the Lord is,” we are told, “ the beginning 
of wisdom.” The terrors of another life are salu- 
tary terrors, and calculated to subdue men’s pas- 
sions. To disabuse us in regard to the utility of 
religious notions, it is sufficient to open the eyes 


The Terrors of Death. 


189 


and to consider what are the morals of the most re- 
ligious people. We see haughty tyrants, oppres- 
sive ministers, perfidious courtiers, countless extor- 
tioners, unscrupulous magistrates, impostors, adul- 
terers, libertines, prostitutes, thieves, and rogues of 
all kinds, who have never doubted the existence of 
a vindictive God, or the punishments of hell, or the 
joys of Paradise. 

Although very useless for the majority of men, 
the ministers of religion have tried to make death 
appear terrible to the eyes of their votaries. If the 
most devoted Christians could be consistent, they 
would pass their whole lives in tears, and would 
finally die in the most terrible alarms. What is more 
frightful than death to those unfortunate ones who 
are constantly reminded that “ it is a fearful thing 
to fall into the hands of a living God ; ” that they 
should “ seek salvation with fear and trembling ! ” 
However, we are assured that the Christian's death 
has great consolations, of which the unbeliever is 
deprived. The good Christian, we are told, dies 
with the firm hope of enjoying eternal happiness, 
which he has tried to deserve. But this firm assur- 
ance, is it not a punishable presumption in the eyes 
of a severe God ? The greatest saints, are they not 
to be in doubt whether they are worthy of the love 
or of the hatred of God 5 Priests who console us 
with the hope of the joys of Paradise, and close 
your eyes to the torments of hell, have you then 
had the advantage of seeing your names and ours 
inscribed in the book of life ? 


190 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

CXLI.— -RELIGION IS THE WEAKEST RESTRAINT 
THAT CAN BE OPPOSED TO THE PASSIONS. 

To oppose to the passions and present interests 
of men the obscure notions about a metaphysical 
God whom no one can conceive of ; the incredible 
punishments of another life ; the pleasures of Heav- 
en, of which we can not form an idea, is it not com- 
bating realities with chimeras ? Men have always 
but confused ideas of their God ; they see Him 
only in the clouds ; they never think of Him when 
they wish to do wrong. Whenever ambition, for- 
tune, or pleasure entices them or leads them away, 
God, and His menaces, and His promises weigh 
nothing in the balance. The things of this life 
have for men a degree of certainty, which the most 
lively faith can never give to the objects of another 
life. 

Every religion, in its origin, was a restraint in- 
vented by legislators who wished to subjugate the 
minds of the common people. Like nurses who 
frighten children in order to put them to sleep, 
ambitious men use the name of the gods to inspire 
fear in savages ; terror seems well suited to compel 
them to submit quietly to the yoke which is to be 
imposed upon them. Are the ghost stories of 
childhood fit for mature age ? Man in his matur- 
ity no longer believes in them, or if he does, he is 
troubled but little by it, and he keeps on his road. 

CXLII. — HONOR IS A MORE SALUTARY AND A 
STRONGER CHECK THAN RELIGION. 

There is scarcely a man who does not fear more 


Religion no Check upon Kings . 19 1 

what he sees than what he does not see ; the judg- 
ments of men, of which he experiences the effects, 
than the judgments of God, of whom he has but 
floating ideas. The desire to please the world, the 
current of custom, the fear of being ridiculed, and 
of “ What will they say ? ” have more power 
than aU religious opinions. A warrior with the 
fear of dishonor, does he not hazard his life in bat- 
tles every day, even at the risk of incurring eternal 
damnation ? 

The most religious persons sometimes show more 
respect for a servant than for God. A man that 
firmly believes that God sees everything, knows 
everything, is everywhere, will, when he is alone, 
commit actions which he never would do in the 
presence of the meanest of mortals. Those even 
who claim to be the most firmly convinced of the 
existence of a God, act every instant as if they did 
not believe anything about it. 

CXLIII. — RELIGION IS CERTAINLY NOT A POWER- 
FUL CHECK UPON THE PASSIONS OF KINGS, 
WHO ARE ALMOST ALWAYS CRUEL AND FAN- 
TASTIC TYRANTS BY THE EXAMPLE OF THIS 
SAME GOD, OF WHOM THEY CLAIM TO BE 
THE REPRESENTATIVES; THEY USE RELIG- 
ION BUT TO BRUTALIZE THEIR SLAVES SO 
MUCH THE MORE, TO LULL THEM TO SLEEP 
IN THEIR FETTERS, AND TO PREY UPON THEM 
WITH THE GREATER FACILITY. 

“ Let us tolerate at least,” we are told, “ the idea 
of a God, which alone can be a restraint upon the 


ig 2 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier . 

passions of kings.” But, in good faith, can we 
admire the marvelous effects which the fear of this 
God produces generally upon the mind of the 
princes who claim to be His images ? What idea 
can we form of the original, if we judge it by its 
duplicates ? Sovereigns, it is true, call themselves 
the representatives of God, His lieutenants upon 
earth. But does the fear of a more powerful mas- 
ter than themselves make them attend to the wel- 
fare of the peoples that Providence has confided 
to their care ? The idea of an invisible Judge, to 
whom alone they pretend to be accountable for 
their actions, should inspire them with terror ! But 
does this terror render them more equitable, more 
humane, less avaricious of the blood and the goods 
of their subjects, more moderate in their pleasures, 
more attentive to their duties? Finally, does this 
God, by whom we are assured that kings reign, pre- 
vent them from vexing in a thousand ways the peo- 
ples of whom they ought to be the leaders, the pro- 
tectors, and fathers ? Let us open our eyes, let us 
turn our regards upon all the earth, and we shall 
see, almost everywhere, men governed by tyrants, 
who make use of religion but to brutalize their 
slaves, whom they oppress by the weight of their 
vices, or whom they sacrifice without mercy to 
their fatal extravagances. Far from being a re- 
straint to the passions of kings, religion, by its very 
principles, gives them a loose rein. It transforms 
them into Divinities, whose caprices the nations 
never dare to resist. At the same time that it 
unchains princes and breaks for them the ties of 


Wise Counsels to Kings. 193 

the social pact, it enchains the minds and the hands 
of their oppressed subjects. Is it surprising, then, 
that the gods of the earth believe that all is per- 
mitted to them, and consider their subjects as vile 
instruments of their caprices or of their ambition ? 

Religion, in every country, has made of the 
Monarch of Nature a cruel, fantastic, partial ty- 
rant, whose caprice is the rule. The God-monarch 
is but too well imitated by His representatives 
upon the earth. Everywhere religion seems in- 
vented but to lull to sleep the people in fetters, in 
order to furnish their masters the facility of devour- 
ing them, or to render them miserable with im- 
punity. 

CXLIV.— ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABSURD, THE 
MOST RIDICULOUS, AND THE MOST ODIOUS 
USURPATION, CALLED THE DIVINE RIGHT 
OF KINGS. WISE COUNSELS TO KINGS. 

In order to guard themselves against the enter- 
prises of a haughty Pontiff who desired to reign 
over kings, and in order to protect their persons 
from the attacks of the credulous people excited 
by their priests, several princes of Europe pre- 
tended to have received their crowns and their 
rights from God alone, and that they should ac- 
count to Him only for their actions. Civil power 
in its battles against spiritual power, having at 
length gained the advantage, and the priests being 
compelled to yield, recognized the Divine right of 
kings and preached it to the people, reserving to 
themselves the right to change opinions and to 


194 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

preach revolution, every time that the divine rights 
of kings did not agree with the divine rights of the 
clergy. It was always at the expense of the peo- 
ple that peace was restored between the kings and 
the priests, but the latter maintained their preten- 
sions notwithstanding all treaties. 

Many tyrants and wicked princes, whose con- 
science reproaches them for their negligence or 
their perversity, far from fearing their God, rather 
like to bargain with this invisible Judge, who never 
refuses anything, or with His priests, who are ac- 
commodating to the masters of the earth rather 
than to their subjects. The people, when reduced 
to despair, consider the divine rights of their chiefs 
as an abuse. When men become exasperated, the 
divine rights of tyrants are compelled to yield to 
the natural rights of their subjects ; they have bet- 
ter market with the gods than with men. Kings 
are responsible for their actions but to God, the 
priests but to themselves ; there is reason to be- 
lieve that both of them have more faith in the in- 
dulgence of Heaven than in that of earth. It is 
much easier to escape the judgments of the gods, 
who can be appeased at little expense, than the 
judgments of men whose patience is exhausted. 
If you take away from the sovereigns the fear of 
an invisible power, what restraint will you oppose 
to their misconduct ? Let them learn how to gov- 
ern, how to be just, how to respect the rights of 
the people, to recognize the benefactions of the 
nations from whom they obtain their grandeur and 
power ; let them learn to fear men, to submit to 


Religion is Fatal to Politics. 195 

the laws of equity, that no one can violate without 
danger ; let these laws restrain equally the power- 
ful and the weak, the great and the small, the sov- 
ereign and the subjects. 

The fear of the Gods, religion, the terrors of an- 
other life — these are the metaphysical and super- 
natural barriers which are opposed to the furious 
passions of princes ! Are these barriers sufficient ? 
We leave it to experience to solve the question ! 
To oppose religion to the wickedness of tyrants, is 
to wish that vague speculations should be more 
powerful than inclinations which conspire to fortify 
them in it from day to day. 

CXLV. — RELIGION IS FATAL TO POLITICS ; IT 
FORMS BUT LICENTIOUS AND PERVERSE DES- 
POTS, AS WELL AS ABJECT AND UNHAPPY 
SUBJECTS. 

We are told constantly of the immense advan- 
tages which religion secures to politics ; but if we 
reflect a moment, we will see without trouble that 
religious opinions blind and lead astray equally the 
rulers and the people, and never enlighten them 
either in regard to their true duties or their real 
interests. Religion but too often forms licentious, 
immoral tyrants, obeyed by slaves who are obliged 
to conform to their views. From lack of the knowl- 
edge of the true principles of administration, the 
aim and the rights of social life, the real interests 
of men, and the duties which unite them, the 
princes are become, in almost every land, licentious, 
absolute, and perverse; and their subjects abject 


196 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

unhappy, and wicked. It was to avoid the trouble 
of studying these important subjects, that they felt 
themselves obliged to have recourse to chimeras, 
which so far, instead of being a remedy, have but 
increased the evils of the human race and with- 
drawn their attention from the most interesting 
things. Does not the unjust and cruel manner in 
which so many nations are governed here below, 
furnish the most visible proofs, not only of the non- 
effect produced by the fear of another life, but of 
the non-existence of a Providence interested in the 
fate of the human race? If there existed a good 
God, would we not be forced to admit that He 
strangely neglects the majority of men in this life ? 
It would appear that this God created the nations 
but to be toys for the passions and follies of His 
representatives upon earth. 

CXLVI. — CHRISTIANITY EXTENDED ITSELF BUT BY 
ENCOURAGING DESPOTISM, OF WHICH IT, LIKE 
ALL RELIGION, IS THE STRONGEST SUPPORT. 

If we read history with some attention, we shall 
see that Christianity, fawning at first, insinuated 
itself among the savage and free nations of Europe 
but by showing their chiefs that its principles 
would favor despotism and place absolute power in 
their hands. We see, consequently, barbarous 
kings converting themselves with a miraculous 
promptitude ; that is to say, adopting without ex- 
amination a system so favorable to their ambition, 
and exerting themselves to have it adopted by 
their subjects. If the ministers of this religion 


Christianity Encourages Despotism. 197 

have since often moderated their servile principles, 
it is because the theory has no influence upon the 
conduct of the Lord’s ministers, except when it 
suits their temporal interests. 

Christianity boasts of having brought to men a 
happiness unknown to preceding centuries. It is 
true that the Grecians have not known the Divine 
right of tyrants or usurpers over their native coun- 
try. Under the reign of Paganism it never entered 
the brain of anybody that Heaven did not want a 
nation to defend itself against a ferocious beast 
which insolently ravaged it. The Christian religion, 
devised for the benefit of tyrants, was established 
on the principle that the nations should renounce 
the legitimate defense of themselves. Thus Chris- 
tian nations are deprived of the first law of nature, 
which decrees that man should resist evil and dis- 
arm all who attempt to destroy him. If the minis- 
ters of the Church have often permitted nations to 
revolt for Heaven’s cause, they never allowed them 
to revolt against real evils or known violences. 

It is from Heaven that the chains have come to 
fetter the minds of mortals. Why is the Moham- 
medan everywhere a slave ? It is because his 
Prophet subdued him in the name of the Deity, 
just as Moses before him subjugated the Jews. In 
all parts of the world we see chat priests were 
the first law-givers and the first sovereigns of 
the savages whom they governed. Religion seems 
to have been invented but to exalt princes 
above their nations, and to deliver the people to 
their discretion. As soon as the latter find them- 


198 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

selves unhappy here below, they are silenced by 
menacing them with God’s wrath ; their eyes are 
fixed on Heaven, in order to prevent them from 
perceiving the real causes of their sufferings and 
from applying the remedies which nature offers 
them. 

CXLVII.-— THE ONLY AIM OF RELIGIOUS PRINCI- 
PLES IS TO PERPETUATE THE TYRANNY OF 
KINGS AND TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONS TO 
THEM. 

By incessantly repeating to men that the earth is 
not their true country ; that the present life is but a 
passage ; that they were not made to be happy in 
this world ; that their sovereigns hold their authori- 
ty but from God, and are responsible to Him alone 
for the misuse of it ; that it is never permitted to 
them to resist, the priesthood succeeded in perpet- 
uating the misconduct of the kings and the misfor- 
tunes of the people ; the interests of the nations 
have been cowardly sacrificed to their chiefs. The 
more we consider the dogmas and the principles of 
religion, the more we shall be convinced that their 
only aim is to give advantage to tyrants and priests ; 
not having the least regard for the good of society. 

In order to mask the powerlessness of these deaf 
Gods, religion has succeeded in making mortals be- 
lieve that it is always iniquity which excites the 
wrath of Heaven. The people blame themselves for 
the disasters and the adversities which they endure 
continually. If disturbed nature sometimes causes 
the people ta feel its blows, their bad governments 


The Aim of Religious Principles. 199 

are but too often the immediate and permanent 
causes from which spring the continual calamities 
that they are obliged to endure. Is it not the am- 
bition of kings and of the great, their negligence, 
their vices, their oppression, to which are generally 
due sterility, mendicity, wars, contagions, bad mor- 
als, and all the multiplied scourges which desolate 
the earth ? 

In continually directing the eyes of men toward 
Heaven, making them believe that all their evils are 
due to Divine wrath, in furnishing them but inef- 
ficient and futile means of lessening their troubles, 
it would appear that the only object of the priests 
is to prevent the nations from dreaming of the true 
sources of their miseries, and to perpetuate them. 
The ministers of religion act like those indigent 
mothers, who, in need of bread, put their hungry 
children to sleep by songs, or who present them 
toys to make them forget the want which torments 
them. 

Blinded from childhood by error, held by the in- 
vincible ties of opinion, crushed by panic terrors, 
stupefied at the bosom of ignorance, how could 
the people understand the true causes of their 
troubles ? They think to remedy them by invok- 
ing the gods. Alas ! do they not see that it is in 
the name of these gods that they are ordered to 
present their throat to the sword of their pitiless 
tyrants, in whom they would find the most visible 
cause of the evils under which they groan, and for 
which they uselessly implore the assistance of 
Heaven? Credulous people! in your adversities 


200 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

redouble your prayers, your offerings, your sacri- 
fices ; besiege your temples, strangle countless vic- 
tims, fast in sackcloth and in ashes, drink your own 
tears ; finally, exhaust yourselves to enrich your 
gods : you will do nothing but enrich their priests ; 
the gods of Heaven will not be propitious to you, 
except when the gods of the earth will recognize 
that they are men like yourselves, and will give to 
your welfare the care which is your due. 

CXLVIII. — HOW FATAL IT IS TO PERSUADE KINGS 
THAT THEY HAVE ONLY GOD TO FEAR IF 
THEY INJURE THE PEOPLE. 

Negligent, ambitious, and perverse princes are 
the real causes of public adversities, of useless and 
unjust wars continually depopulating the earth, of 
greedy and despotic governments, destroying the 
benefactions of nature for men. The rapacity of 
the courts discourages agriculture, blots out indus- 
try, causes famine, contagion, misery ; Heaven is 
neither cruel nor favorable to the wishes of the 
people ; it is their haughty chiefs, who always have 
a heart of brass. 

It is a notion destructive to wholesome politics 
and to the morals of princes, to persuade them 
that God alone is to be feared by them, when they 
injure their subjects or when they neglect to ren- 
der them happy. Sovereigns ! It is not the Gods, 
but your people whom you offend when you do 
evil. It is to these people, and by retroaction, to 
yourselves, that you do harm when you govern 
unjustly. 


A Religious King is a Scourge. 201 

Nothing is more common in history than to see 
religious tyrants; nothing more rare than to find 
equitable, vigilant, enlightened princes. A mon- 
arch can be pious, very strict in fulfilling servilely 
the duties of his religion, very submissive to his 
priests, liberal in their behalf, and at the same time 
destitute of all the virtues and talents necessary for 
governing. Religion for the princes is but an in- 
strument intended to keep the people more firmly 
under the yoke. According to the beautiful prin- 
ciples of religious morality, a tyrant who, during a 
long reign, will have done nothing but oppress his 
subjects, rob them of the fruits of their labor, sac- 
rifice them without pity to his insatiable ambition ; 
a conqueror who will have usurped the provinces 
of others, who will have slaughtered whole nations, 
who will have been all his life a real scourge of the 
human race, imagines that his conscience can be 
tranquillized, if, in order to expiate so many crimes, 
he will have wept at the feet of a priest, who will 
have the cowardly complaisance to console and re- 
assure a brigand, whom the most frightful despair 
would punish too little for the evil which he has 
done upon earth. 

CLXIX. — A RELIGIOUS KING IS A SCOURGE TO 
HIS KINGDOM. 

A sincerely religious sovereign is generally a 
very dangerous chief for a State ; credulity always 
indicates a narrow mind ; devotion generally ab- 
sorbs the attention which the prince ought to give 
to the ruling of his people. Docile to the sugges- 


202 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

tions of his priests, he constantly becomes the toy 
of their caprices, the abettor of their quarrels, the in- 
strument and the accomplice of their follies, to which 
he attaches the greatest importance. Among the 
most fatal gifts which religion has bestowed upon 
the world, we must consider above all, these devo- 
ted and zealous monarchs, who, with the idea of 
working for the salvation of their subjects, have 
made it their sacred duty to torment, to persecute, 
to destroy those whose conscience made them think 
otherwise than they do. A religious bigot at the 
head of an empire, is one of the greatest scourges 
which Heaven in its fury could have sent upon 
earth. One fanatical or deceitful priest who has 
the ear of a credulous and powerful prince, suffices 
to put a State into disorder and the universe into 
combustion. 

In almost all countries, priests and devout per- 
sons are charged with forming the mind and the 
heart of the young princes destined to govern the 
nations. What enlightenment can teachers of this 
stamp give ? Filled themselves with prejudices, 
they will hold up to their pupil superstition as the 
most important and the most sacred thing, its chi- 
merical duties as the most holy obligations, intoler- 
ance, and the spirit of persecution, as the true 
foundations of his future authority ; they will try 
to make him a chief of party, a turbulent fanatic, 
and a tyrant ; they will suppress at an early period 
his reason ; they will premonish him against it ; 
they will prevent truth from reaching him ; they 
will prejudice him against true talents, and prepos- 


A Despot is a Madman . 


203 


sess him in favor of despicable talents ; finally 
they will make of him an imbecile devotee, who 
will have no idea of justice or of injustice, of true 
glory or of true greatness, and who will be devoid 
of the intelligence and virtue necessary to the gov- 
ernment of a great kingdom. Here, in brief, is the 
plan of education for a child destined to make, one 
day, the happiness or the misery of several millions 
of men. 

CL. — THE SHIELD OF RELIGION IS FOR TYRANNY, 
A WEAK RAMPART AGAINST THE DESPAIR OF 
THE PEOPLE. A DESPOT IS A MADMAN, WHO 
INJURES HIMSELF AND SLEEPS UPON THE 
EDGE OF A PRECIPICE. 

Priests in all times have shown themselves sup- 
porters of despotism, and the enemies of public 
liberty. Their profession requires vile and submis- 
sive slaves, who never have the audacity to reason. 
In an absolute government, their great object is 
to secure control of the mind of a weak and stu- 
pid prince, in order to make themselves masters 
of the people. Instead of leading the people to 
salvation, priests have always led them to servitude. 

For the sake of the supernatural titles which re- 
ligion has forged for the most wicked princes, the 
latter have generally united with the priests, who, 
sure of governing by controlling the opinion of the 
sovereign himself, have charge of tying the hands 
of the people and of keeping them under their 
yoke. But it is vain that the tyrant, protected by 
the shield of religion, flatters himself with being 


204 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

sheltered from all the blows of fate. Opinion is a 
weak rampart against the despair of the people. 
Besides, the priest is the friend of the tyrant only 
so long as he finds his profit by the tyranny ; he 
preaches sedition and demolishes the idol which 
he has made, when he considers it no longer in 
conformity with the interests of Heaven, which he 
speaks of as he pleases, and which never speaks but 
in behalf of his interests. No doubt it will be said, 
that the sovereigns, knowing all the advantages 
which religion procures for them, are truly inter- 
ested in upholding it with all their strength. If 
religious opinions are useful to tyrants, it is evident 
that they are useless to those who govern accord- 
ing to the laws of reason and of equity. Is there 
any advantage in exercising tyranny ? Does not 
tyranny deprive princes of true power, the love of 
the people, in which is safety ? Should not every 
rational prince perceive that the despot is but an 
insane man who injures himself? Will not every 
enlightened prince beware of his flatterers, whose 
object is to put him to sleep at the edge of the 
precipice to which they lead him ? 

CLI.— RELIGION FAVORS THE ERRORS OF PRINCES, 
BY DELIVERING THEM FROM FEAR AND RE- 
MORSE. 

If the sacerdotal flatteries succeed in perverting 
princes and changing them into tyrants, the latter 
on their side necessarily corrupt the great men and 
the people. Under an unjust master, without good- 
ness, without virtue, who knows no law but his 


What is an Enlightened Sovereign t 205 

caprice, a nation must become necessarily depraved. 
Will this master wish to have honest, enlightened, 
and virtuous men near him ? No ! he needs flatter- 
ers in those who approach him, imitators, slaves, 
base and servile minds, who give themselves up to 
his taste ; his court will spread the contagion of 
vice to the inferior classes. By degrees all will be 
necessarily corrupted, in a State whose chief is cor- 
rupt himself. It was said a long time ago that the 
princes seem ordained to do all they do themselves. 
Religion, far from being a restraint upon the sover- 
eigns, entitles them, without fear and without re- 
morse, to the errors which are as fatal to themselves 
as to the nations which they govern. Men are 
never deceived with impunity. Tell a prince that 
he is a God, and very soon he will believe that he 
owes nothing to anybody. As long as he is feared, 
he will not care much for love ; he will recognize 
no rights, no relations with his subjects, nor obli- 
gations in their behalf. Tell this prince that he is 
responsible for his actions to God alone, and very 
soon he will act as if he was responsible to nobody. 

CLII. — WHAT IS AN ENLIGHTENED SOVEREIGN? 

An enlightened sovereign is he who understands 
his true interests ; he knows they are united to 
those of his nation ; he knows that a prince can 
be neither great, nor powerful, nor beloved, nor re- 
spected, so long as he will command but miserable 
slaves ; he knows that equity, benevolence, and 
vigilance will give him more real rights over men 
than fabulous titles which claim to come from 


20 6 Common Sense , Jean Me slier. 

Heaven. He will feel that religion is useful but to 
the priests ; that it is useless to society, which is 
often troubled by it ; that it must be limited to 
prevent it from doing injury ; finally, he will un- 
derstand that, in order to reign with glory, he must 
make good laws, possess virtues, and not base his 
power on impositions and chimeras. 

CLIII. — THE DOMINANT PASSIONS AND CRIMES 
OF PRIESTCRAFT. WITH THE ASSISTANCE 
OF ITS PRETENDED GOD AND OF RELIGION, 
IT ASSERTS ITS PASSIONS AND COMMITS ITS 
CRIMES. 

The ministers of religion have taken great care 
to make of their God a terrible, capricious, and 
changeable tyrant ; it was necessary for them that 
He should be thus in order that He might lend 
Himself to their various interests. A God who 
would be just and good, without a mixture of 
caprice and perversity ; a God who would con- 
stantly have the qualities of an honest man or 
of a compliant sovereign, would not suit His min- 
isters. It is necessary to the priests that we trem- 
ble before their God, in order that we have recourse 
to them to obtain the means to be quieted. No 
man is a hero to his valet de chambre. It is not 
surprising that a God clothed by His priests in such 
a way as to cause others to fear Him, should rarely 
impose upon those priests themselves, or exert but 
little influence upon their conduct. Consequently 
we see them behave themselves in a uniform way 
in every land ; everywhere they devour nations, de- 


Charlatanry of the Priests . 207 

base souls, discourage industry, and sow discord 
under the pretext of the glory of their God. Am- 
bition and avarice were at all times the dominating 
passions of the priesthood ; everywhere the priest 
places himself above the sovereign and the laws ; 
everywhere we see him occupied but with the in- 
terests of his pride, his cupidity, his despotic and 
vindictive mood ; everywhere he substitutes ex- 
piations, sacrifices, ceremonies, and mysterious 
practices ; in a word, inventions lucrative to him- 
self for useful and social virtues. The mind is 
confounded and reason interdicted with the view 
of ridiculous practices and pitiable means which 
the ministers of the gods invented in every coun- 
try to purify souls and render Heaven favorable to 
nations. Here, they practice circumcision upon a 
child to procure it Divine benevolence ; there, they 
pour water upon his head to wash away the crimes 
which he could not yet have committed ; in other 
places he is told to plunge himself into a river 
whose waters have the power to wash away all his 
impurities ; in other places certain food is forbid- 
den to him, whose use would not fail to excite 
celestial indignation ; in other countries they order 
the sinful man to come periodically for the confes- 
sion of his faults to a priest, who is often a greater 
sinner than he. 

CLIV.— CHARLATANRY OF THE PRIESTS. 

What would we say of a crowd of quacks, who 
every day would exhibit in a public place, selling 
their remedies and recommending them as infalli- 


208 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

ble, while we should find them afflicted with the 
same infirmities which they pretend to cure ? 
Would we have much confidence in the recipes 
of these charlatans, who would bawl out : “ Take 
our remedies, their effects are infallible — they cure 
everybody except us ? ” What would we think to 
see these same charlatans pass their lives in com- 
plaining that their remedies never produce any 
effect upon the patients who take them ? Finally, 
what idea would we form of the foolishness of the 
common man who, in spite of this confession, would 
continue to pay very high for remedies which will 
not be beneficial to him ? The priests resemble 
alchemists, v/ho boldly assert that they have the 
secret of making gold, while they scarcely have 
clothing enough to cover their nudity. 

The ministers of religion incessantly declaim 
against the corruption of the age, and complain 
loudly of the little success of their teachings, at 
the same time they assure us that religion is the 
universal remedy, the true panacea for all human 
evils. These priests are sick themselves ; however, 
men continue to frequent their stands and to have 
faith in their Divine antidotes, which, according to 
their own confession, cure nobody ! 

CLV. — COUNTLESS CALAMITIES ARE PRODUCED 
BY RELIGION, WHICH HAS TAINTED MORAL- 
ITY AND DISTURBED ALL JUST IDEAS AND 
ALL SOUND DOCTRINES. 

Religion, especially among modern people, in 
taking possession of morality, totally obscured its 


Countless Calamities Produced by Religion. 209 

principles ; it has rendered men unsocial from a 
sense of duty ; it has forced them to be inhuman 
toward all those who did not think as they did. 
Theological disputes, equally unintelligible for the 
parties already irritated against each other, have 
unsettled empires, caused revolutions, ruined sov- 
ereigns, devastated the whole of Europe ; these des- 
picable quarrels could not be extinguished even in 
rivers of blood. After the extinction of Paganism 
the people established a religious principle of go- 
ing into a frenzy, every time that an opinion was 
brought forth which their priests considered con- 
trary to the holy doctrine. The votaries of a re- 
ligion which preaches externally but charity, har- 
mony, and peace, have shown themselves more 
ferocious than cannibals or savages every time that 
their instructors have excited them to the destruc- 
tion of their brethren. There is no crime which 
men have not committed in the idea of pleasing 
the Deity or of appeasing His wrath. The idea 
of a terrible God who was represented as a despot, 
must necessarily have rendered His subjects wicked. 
Fear makes but slaves, and slaves are cowardly, low, 
cruel, and think they have a right to do anything 
when it is the question of gaining the good-will or 
of escaping the punishments of the master whom 
they fear. Liberty of thought can alone give to 
men humanity and grandeur of soul. The notion 
of a tyrant God can create but abject, angry, quar- 
relsome, intolerant slaves. Every religion which 
supposes a God easily irritated, jealous, vindic- 
tive, punctilious about His rights or His title, a 


210 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

God small enough to be offended at opinions which 
we have of Him, a God unjust enough to exact 
uniform ideas in regard to Him, such a religion be- 
comes necessarily turbulent, unsocial, sanguinary ; 
the worshipers of such a God never believe they 
can, without crime, dispense with hating and even 
destroying all those whom they designate as adver- 
saries of this God ; they would believe themselves 
traitors to the cause of their celestial Monarch, if 
they should live on good terms with rebellious fel- 
low-citizens. To love what God hates, would it not 
be exposing one’s self to His implacable hatred ? 
Infamous persecutors, and you, religious cannibals ! 
will you never feel the folly and injustice of your 
intolerant disposition ? Do you not see that man 
is no more the master of his religious opinions, of 
his credulity or incredulity, than of the language 
which he learns in childhood, and which he can not 
change? To tell men to think as you do, is it not 
asking a foreigner to express his thoughts in your 
language ? To punish a man for his erroneous 
opinions, is it not punishing him for having been 
educated differently from yourself? If I am in- 
credulous, is it possible for me to banish from my 
mind the reasons which have unsettled my faith ? 
If God allows men the freedom to damn themselves, 
is it your business? Are you wiser and more 
prudent than this God whose rights you wish to 
avenge ? 


Every Religion is Intolerant. 


211 


CLVI.— EVERY RELIGION IS INTOLERANT, AND 
CONSEQUENTLY DESTRUCTIVE OF BENEFICENCE. 

There is no religious person who, according to 
his temperament, does not hate, despise, or pity 
the adherents of a sect different from his own. 
The dominant religion (which is never but that 
of the sovereign and the armies) always makes its 
superiority felt in a very cruel and injurious man- 
ner toward the weaker sects. There does not exist 
yet upon earth a true tolerance ; everywhere a jeal- 
ous God is worshiped, and each nation believes 
itself His friend to the exclusion of all others. 

Every nation boasts itself of worshiping the true 
God, the universal God, the Sovereign of Nature ; 
but when we come to examine this Monarch of 
the world, we perceive that each organization, each 
sect, each religious party, makes of this powerful 
God but an inferior sovereign, whose cares and 
kindness extend themselves but over a small num- 
ber of His subjects who pretend to have the exclu- 
sive advantage of His favors, and that He does not 
trouble Himself about the others. 

The founders of religions, and the priests who 
maintain them, have intended to separate the na- 
tions which they indoctrinated, from other nations ; 
they desired to separate their own flock by distinct- 
ive features ; they gave to their votaries Gods in- 
imical to other Gods as well as the forms of worship, 
dogmas, ceremonies, separately ; they persuaded 
them especially that the religions of others were 
ungodly and abominable. By this infamous con- 
trivance, these ambitious impostors took exclusive 


212 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

possession of the minds of their votaries, rendered 
them unsocial, and made them consider as outcasts 
all those who had not the same ideas and form of 
worship as their own. This is the way religion 
succeeded in closing the heart, and in banishing 
from it that affection which man ought to hav^ 
for his fellow-being. Sociability, tolerance, human 
ity, these first virtues of all morality are totally in 
compatible with religious prejudices. 

CLVII. — ABUSE OF A STATE RELIGION. 

Every national religion has a tendency to make 
man vain, unsocial, and wicked ; the first step to- 
ward humanity is to permit each one to follow 
peacefully the worship and the opinions which suit 
him. But such a conduct can not please the minis- 
ters of religion, who wish to have the right to tyr- 
annize over even the thoughts of men. Blind and 
bigoted princes, you hate, you persecute, you de- 
vote heretics to torture, because you are persuaded 
that these unfortunate ones displease God. But 
do you not claim that your God is full of kindness? 
How can you hope to please Him by such barba- 
rous actions which He can not help disapproving 
of? Besides, who told you that their opinions dis- 
please your God? Your priests told you! But 
who guarantees that your priests are not deceived 
themselves or that they do not wish to deceive 
you ? It is these same priests ! Princes ! it is 
upon the perilous word of your priests that you 
commit the most atrocious and the most unheard- 
of crimes, with the idea of pleasing the Deity ! 


Religion Authorizes Crime. 


213 


CLVIII.— RELIGION GIVES LICENSE TO THE FE- 
ROCITY OF THE PEOPLE BY LEGITIMIZING 
IT, AND AUTHORIZES CRIME BY TEACHING 
THAT IT CAN BE USEFUL TO THE DESIGNS 
OF GOD. 

“ Never,” says Pascal, “ do we do evil so thor- 
oughly and so willingly as when we do it through 
a false principle of conscience.” Nothing is more 
dangerous than a religion which licenses the feroc- 
ity of the people, and justifies in their eyes the 
blackest crimes ; it puts no limits to their wicked- 
ness as soon as they believe it authorized by their 
God, whose interests, as they are told, can justify 
all their actions. If there is a question of religion, 
immediately the most civilized nations become true 
savages, and believe everything is permitted to 
them. The more cruel they are, the more agree- 
able they suppose themselves to be to their God, 
whose cause they imagine can not be sustained by 
too much zeal. All religions of the world have 
authorized countless crimes. The Jews, excited 
by the promises of their God, arrogated to them- 
selves the right of exterminating whole nations ; 
the Romans, whose faith was founded upon the 
oracles of their Gods, became real brigands, and 
conquered and ravaged the world ; the Arabians, 
encouraged by their Divine preceptor, carried the 
sword and the flame among Christians and idola- 
ters. The Christians, under pretext of spreading 
their holy religion, covered the two hemispheres a 
hundred times with blood. In all events favorable 
to their own interests, which they always call the 


214 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier . 

cause of God, the priests show us the finger of 
God. According to these principles, religious big- 
ots have the luck of seeing the finger of God in 
revolts, in revolutions, massacres, regicides, prosti- 
tutions, infamies, and, if these things contribute to 
the advantage of religion, we can say, then, that 
God uses all sorts of means to secure His ends. Is 
there anything better calculated to annihilate every 
idea of morality in the minds of men, than to make 
them understand that their God, who is so power- 
ful and so perfect, is often compelled to use crime 
to accomplish His designs ? 

CLIX. — REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT 
THE EVILS ATTRIBUTED TO RELIGION ARE 
BUT THE SAD EFFECTS OF THE PASSIONS OF 
MEN. 

When we complain about the violence and evils 
which generally religion causes upon earth, we are 
answered at once, that these excesses are not due 
to religion, but that they are the sad effect of men’s 
passions. I would ask, however, what unchained 
these passions ? It is evidently religion ; it is a zeal 
which renders inhuman, and which serves to cover 
the greatest infamy. Do not these disorders prove 
that religion, instead of restraining the passions of 
men, does but cover them with a cloak that sanc- 
tifies them ; and that nothing would be more bene- 
ficial than to tear away this sacred cloak of which 
men make such a bad use ? What horrors would 
be banished from society, if the wicked were de- 
prived of a pretext so plausible for disturbing it J 


Morality Incompatible with Religion . 215 

Instead of cherishing peace among men, the priests 
stirred up hatred and strife. They pleaded their 
conscience, and pretended to have received from 
Heaven the right to be quarrelsome, turbulent, and 
rebellious. Do not the ministers of God consider 
themselves to be wronged, do they not pretend 
that His Divine Majesty is injured every time that 
the sovereigns have the temerity to try to prevent 
them from doing injury? The priests resemble 
that irritable woman, who cried out fire ! murder ! 
assassins ! while her husband was holding her hands 
to prevent her from beating him. 

CLX. — ALL MORALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH 
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 

Notwithstanding the bloody tragedies which re- 
ligion has so often caused in this world, we are con- 
stantly told that there can be no morality without 
religion. If we judge theological opinions by their 
effects, we would be right in assuming that all mo- 
rality is perfectly incompatible with the religious 
opinions of men. “ Imitate God,” is constantly re- 
peated to us. Ah ! what morals would we have if 
we should imitate this God ! Which God should 
we imitate? Is it the deist’s God? But even this 
God can not be a model of goodness for us. If 
He is the author of all, He is equally the author of 
the good and of the bad we see in this world ; if 
He is the author of order, He is also the author 
of disorder, which would not exist without His 
permission; if He produces, He destroys; if He 
gives life, He also causes death ; if He grants abun- 


216 Common Sense, by Jean Me slier. 

dance, riches, prosperity, and peace, He permits or 
sends famines, poverty, calamities, and wars. How 
can you accept as a model of permanent beneficence 
the God of theism or of natural religion, whose 
favorable intentions are at every moment contra- 
dicted by everything that transpires in the world ? 
Morality needs a firmer basis than the example of 
a God whose conduct varies, and whom we can not 
call good but by obstinately closing the eyes to the 
evil which He causes, or permits to be done in this 
world. 

Shall we imitate th.e good and great Jupiter of 
ancient Paganism? To imitate such a God would 
be to take as a model a rebellious son, who wrests 
his father’s throne from him and then mutilates his 
body; it is imitating a debauchee and adulterer, 
an incestuous, intemperate man, whose conduct 
would cause any reasonable mortal to blush. What 
would have become of men under the control of 
Paganism if they had imagined, according to Plato, 
that virtue consisted in imitating the gods ? 

Must we imitate the God of the Jews? Will we 
find a model for our conduct in Jehovah? He is 
truly a savage God, really created for an ignorant, 
cruel, and immoral people; He is a God who is 
constantly enraged, breathing only vengeance ; who 
is without pity, who commands carnage and rob- 
bery; in a word, He is a God whose conduct can 
not serve as a model to an honest man, and who 
can be imitated but by a chief of brigands. 

Shall we imitate, then, the Jesus of the Chris- 
tians ? Can this God, who died to appease the im- 


The Morals of the Gospel Impracticable. 217 

placable fury of His Father, serve as an example 
which men ought to follow? Alas ! we will see in 
Him but a God, or rather a fanatic, a misanthrope, 
who being plunged Himself into misery, and preach- 
ing to the wretched, advises them to be poor, to 
combat and extinguish nature, to hate pleasure, to 
seek sufferings, and to despise themselves ; He tells 
them to leave father, mother, all the ties of life, in 
order to follow Him. What beautiful morality! 
you will say. It is admirable, no doubt ; it must 
be Divine, because it is impracticable for men. But 
does not this sublime morality tend to render vir- 
tue despicable ? According to this boasted moral- 
ity of the man-God of the Christians, His disciples 
in this lower world are, like Tantalus, tormented 
with burning thirst, which they are not permitted 
to quench. Do not such morals give us a wonder- 
ful idea of nature’s Author? If He has, as we are 
assured, created everything for the use of His creat- 
ures, by what strange caprice does He forbid the 
use of the good things which He has created for 
them? Is the pleasure which man constantly de- 
sires but a snare that God has maliciously laid in 
his path to entrap him ? 

CLXI. — THE MORALS OF THE GOSPEL ARE 
IMPRACTICABLE. 

The votaries of Christ would like to make us re- 
gard as a miracle the establishment of their religion, 
which is in every respect contrary to nature, op- 
posed to all the inclinations of the heart, an enemy 
to physical pleasures. But the austerity of a doc- 


218 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

trine has a tendency to render it more wonderful 
to the ignorant. The same reason which makes us 
respect, as Divine and supernatural, inconceivable 
mysteries, causes us to admire, as Divine and super- 
natural, a morality impracticable and beyond the 
power of man. To admire morals and to practice 
them, are two very different things. All the Chris- 
tians continually admire the morals of the Gospel, 
but it is practiced but by a small number of saints ; 
admired by people who themselves avoid imitating 
their conduct, under the pretext that they are lack- 
ing either the power or the grace. 

The whole universe is infected more or less with 
a religious morality which is founded upon the 
opinion that to please the Deity it is necessary to 
render one’s self unhappy upon earth. We see in all 
parts of our globe penitents, hermits, fakirs, fanatics, 
who seem to have studied profoundly the means 
of tormenting themselves for the glory of a Being 
whose goodness they all agree in celebrating. Re 
ligion, by its essence, is the enemy of joy and of 
the welfare of men. “ Blessed are those who suf- 
fer ! ” Woe to those who have abundance and joy ! 
These are the rare revelations which Christianity 
teaches ! 

CLXII. — A SOCIETY OF SAINTS WOULD BE IM- 
POSSIBLE. 

In what consists the saint of all religions ? It is 
a man who prays, fasts, who torments himself, who 
avoids the world, who, like an owl, is pleased but 
in solitude, who abstains from all pleasure, who 


A Society of Saints Impossible. 219 

seems frightened at every object which turns him 
a moment from his fanatical meditations. Is this 
virtue? Is a being of this stamp of any use to 
himself or to others ? Would not society be dis- 
solved, and would not men retrograde into barba- 
rism, if each one should be fool enough to wish to 
be a saint ? 

It is evident that the literal and rigorous practice 
of the Divine morality of the Christians would lead 
nations to ruin. A Christian who would attain 
perfection, ought to drive away from his mind all 
that can alienate him from heaven — his true coun- 
try. He sees upon earth but temptations, snares, 
and opportunities to go astray ; he must fear sci- 
ence as injurious to faith ; he must avoid indus- 
try, as it is a means of obtaining riches, which are 
fatal to salvation ; he must renounce preferments 
and honors, as things capable of exciting his 
pride and calling his attention away from his 
soul ; in a word, the sublime morality of Christ, 
if it were not impracticable, would sever all the 
ties of society. 

A saint in the world is no more useful than a 
saint in the desert ; the saint has an unhappy, dis- 
contented, and often irritable, turbulent disposition ; 
his zeal often obliges him, conscientiously, to dis- 
turb society by opinions or dreams which his van- 
ity makes him accept as inspirations from Heaven. 
The annals of all religions are filled with accounts 
of anxious, intractable, seditious saints, who have 
distinguished themselves by ravages that, for the 
greater glory of God, they have scattered through- 


220 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

out the universe. If the saints who live in solitude 
are useless, those who live in the world are very 
often dangerous. The vanity of performing a role, 
the desire of distinguishing themselves in the eyes 
of the stupid vulgar by a strange conduct, consti- 
tute usually the distinctive characteristics of great 
saints ; pride persuades them that they are extra- 
ordinary men, far above human nature ; beings who 
are more perfect than others ; chosen ones, which 
God looks upon with more complaisance than the 
rest of mortals. Humility in a saint is, as a gen- 
eral rule, but a pride more refined than that of 
common men. It must be a very ridiculous vanity 
which can determine a man to continually war with 
his own nature ! 

CLXIII. — HUMAN NATURE IS NOT DEPRAVED ; AND 
A MORALITY WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS FACT 
IS NOT MADE FOR MAN. 

A morality which contradicts the nature of man 
is not made for him. But you will say that man’s 
nature is depraved. In what consists this pretend- 
ed depravity? Is it because he has passions ? But 
are not passions the very essence of man? Must 
he not seek, desire, love that which is, or that 
which he believes to be, essential to his happiness? 
Must he not fear and avoid that which he judges 
injurious or fatal to him ? Excite his passions by 
useful objects ; let him attach himself to these 
same objects, divert him by sensible and known 
motives from that which can do him or others 
harm, and you will make of him a reasonable and 


Human Nature not Depraved. 221 

virtuous being. A man without passions would 
be equally indifferent to vice and to virtue. 

Holy doctors ! .you constantly tell us that man’s 
nature is perverted ; you tell us that the way of all 
flesh is corrupt ; you tell us that nature gives us 
but inordinate inclinations. In this case you ac- 
cuse your God, who has not been able or willing to 
keep this nature in its original perfection. If this 
nature became corrupted, why did not this God re- 
pair it ? The Christian assures me that human nat- 
ure is repaired, that the death of his God has re- 
established it in its integrity. How comes it then, 
that human nature, notwithstanding the death of 
a God, is still depraved ? Is it, then, a pure loss 
that your God died? What becomes of His 
omnipotence and His victory over the Devil, if 
it is true that the Devil still holds the empire 
which, according to you, he has always exercised 
in the world ? 

Death, according to Christian theology, is the 
penalty of sin. This opinion agrees with that of 
some savage Negro nations, who imagine that the 
death of a man is always the supernatural effect of 
thewrath of the Gods. The Christians firmly believe 
that Christ has delivered them from sin, while they 
see that, in their religion as in the others, man is 
subject to death. To say that Jesus Christ has de- 
livered us from sin, is it not claiming that a judge 
has granted pardon to a guilty man, while we see 
him sent to torture ? 


222 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

CLXIV. — OF JESUS CHRIST, THE PRIEST’S GOD. 

If, closing our eyes upon all that transpires in 
this world, we should rely upon the votaries of the 
Christian religion, we would believe that the com- 
ing of our Divine Saviour has produced the most 
wonderful revolution and the most complete re- 
form in the morals of nations. The Messiah, accord- 
ing to Pascal,* ought of Himself alone to produce 
a great, select, and holy people ; conducting and 
nourishing it, and introducing it into the place of 
repose and sanctity, rendering it holy to God, mak- 
ing it the temple of God, saving it from the wrath 
of God, delivering it from the servitude of sin, giv- 
ing laws to this people, engraving these laws upon 
their hearts, offering Himself to God for them, 
crushing the head of the serpent, etc. This great 
man has forgotten to show us the people upon 
whom His Divine Messiah has produced the mi- 
raculous effects of which He speaks with so much 
emphasis ; so far, it seems, they do not exist upon 
the earth ! 

If we examine ever so little the morals of the 
Christian nations, and listen to the clamors of their 
priests, we will be obliged to conclude that their 
God, Jesus Christ, preached without fruit, without 
success; that His Almighty will still finds in men 
a resistance, over which this God either can not or 
does not wish to triumph. The morality of this 
Divine Doctor which His disciples admire so much, 
and practice so little, is followed during a whole 


♦ See the Thoughts of Pascal. 


The Dogma of the Remission of Sms. 223 

century but by half a dozen of obscure saints, fa- 
natical and ignorant monks, who alone will have 
the glory of shining in the celestial court ; all the 
remainder of mortals, although redeemed by the 
blood of this God, will be the prey of eternal 
flames. 

CLXV. — THE DOGMA OF THE REMISSION OF SINS 
HAS BEEN INVENTED IN THE INTEREST OF 
THE PRIESTS. 

When a man has a great desire to sin, he thinks 
very little about his God ; more than this, what- 
ever crimes he may have committed, he always 
flatters himself that this God will mitigate the se- 
verity of his punishments. No mortal seriously 
believes that his conduct can damn him. Although 
he fears a terrible God, who often makes him trem- 
ble, every time he is strongly tempted he succumbs 
and sees but a God of mercy, the idea of whom quiets 
him. Does he do evil ? He hopes to have the time 
to correct himself, and promises earnestly to repent 
some day. 

There are in the religious pharmacy infallible re- 
ceipts for calming the conscience ; the priests in 
every country possess sovereign secrets for disarm- 
ing the wrath of Heaven. However true it may be 
that the anger of Deity is appeased by prayers, by 
offerings, by sacrifices, by penitential tears, we 
have no right to say that religion holds in check 
the irregularities of men ; they will first sin, and 
afterward seek the means to reconcile God. Every 
religion which expiates, and which promises the 


224 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

remission of crimes, if it restrains any, it encourages 
the great number to commit evil. Notwithstand- 
ing His immutability, God is, in all the religions 
of this world, a veritable Proteus. His priests 
show Him now armed with severity, and then full 
of clemency and gentleness; now cruel and piti- 
less, and then easily reconciled by the repentance 
and the tears of the sinners. Consequently, men 
face the Deity in the manner which conforms the 
most to their present interests. An always wrath- 
ful God would repel His worshipers, or cast them 
into despair. Men need a God who becomes angry 
and who can be appeased ; if His anger alarms a 
few timid souls, His clemency reassures the deter- 
mined wicked ones who intend to have recourse 
sooner or later to the means of reconciling them- 
selves with Him ; if the judgments of God frighten 
a few faint-hearted devotees who already by tem- 
perament and by habitude are not inclined to evil, 
the treasures of Divine mercy reassure the greatest 
criminals, who have reason to hope that they will 
participate in them with the others. 

CLXVI. — THE FEAR OF GOD IS POWERLESS AGAINST 
HUMAN PASSIONS. 

The majority of men rarely think of God, or, at 
least, do not occupy themselves much with Him. 
The idea of God has so little stability, it is so 
afflicting, that it can not hold the imagination for 
a long time, except in some sad and melancholy 
visionists who do not constitute the majority of 
the inhabitants of this world. The common man 


The Invention of Hell. 


225 


has no conception of it ; his weak brain becomes 
perplexed the moment he attempts to think of 
Him. The business man thinks of nothing but his 
affairs ; the courtier of his intrigues ; worldly men, 
women, youth, of their pleasures ; dissipation soon 
dispels the wearisome notions of religion. The 
ambitious, the avaricious, and the debauchee sedu- 
lously lay aside speculations too feeble to counter- 
balance their diverse passions. 

Whom does the idea of God overawe ? A few 
weak men disappointed and disgusted with this 
world ; some persons whose passions are already 
extinguished by age, by infirmities, or by reverses 
of fortune. Religion is a restraint but for those 
whose temperament or circumstances have already 
subjected them to reason. The fear of God does 
not prevent any from committing sin but those 
who do not wish to sin very much, or who are no 
longer in a condition to sin. To tell men that Di- 
vinity punishes crime in this world, is to claim as a 
fact that which experience contradicts constantly 
The most wicked men are usually the arbiters of 
the world, and those whom fortune blesses with its 
favors. To convince us of the judgments of God 
by sending us to the other life, is to make us accept 
conjectures in order to destroy facts which we can 
not dispute. 

C.LXVII. — THE INVENTION OF HELL IS TOO 
ABSURD TO PREVENT EVIL. 

No one dreams about another life when he is 
very much absorbed in objects which he meets on 


226 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

earth. In the eyes of a passionate lover, the pres- 
ence of his mistress extinguishes the fires of hell, 
and her charms blot out all the pleasures of Para- 
dise. Woman ! you leave, you say, your lover for 
your God ? It is that your lover is no longer the 
same in your estimation ; or your lover leaves you. 
and you must fill the void which is made in your 
heart. Nothing is more common than to see am- 
bitious, perverse, corrupt, and immoral men who 
are religious, and who sometimes exhibit even zeal 
in its behalf ; if they do not practice religion, they 
promise themselves they will practice it some day ; 
they keep it in reserve as a remedy which, sooner 
or later, will be necessary to quiet the conscience 
for the evil which they intend yet to do. Besides, 
devotees and priests being a very numerous, active, 
and powerful party, it is not astonishing to see im- 
postors and thieves seek for its support in order to 
gain their ends. We will be told, no doubt, that 
many honest people are sincerely religious without 
profit ; but is uprightness of heart always accom- 
panied with intelligence ? We are cited to a great 
number of learned men, men of genius, who are 
very religious. This proves that men of genius 
can have prejudices, can be pusillanimous, can have 
an imagination which seduces them and prevents 
them from examining objects coolly. Pascal proves 
nothing in favor of religion, except that a man of 
genius can possess a grain of weakness, and is but 
a child when he is weak enough to listen to preju- 
dices. Pascal himself tells us “ that the mind can 
be strong and narrow, and just as extended as it is 


What is Virtue According to Theology? 227 

weak.” He says more : “ We can have our senses 
all right, and not be equally able in all things ; be- 
cause there are men who, being right in a certain 
sphere of things, lose themselves in others.” 

CLXVIII.— ABSURDITY OF THE MORALITY AND 
OF THE RELIGIOUS VIRTUES ESTABLISHED 
SOLELY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRIESTS. 

What is virtue according to theology ? It is, we 
are told, the conformity of men’s actions with the 
will of God. But who is God? He is a being 
whom no one is able to conceive of, and whom, 
consequently, each one modifies in his own way. 
What is the will of God ? It is what men who 
have seen God, or whom God has inspired, have 
told us. Who are those who have seen God ? 
They are either fanatics, or scoundrels, or ambi- 
tious men, whose word we can not rely upon. To 
found morality upon a God that each man repre- 
sents differently, that each one composes by his 
own idea, whom everybody arranges according to 
his own temperament and his own interest, is evi- 
dently founding morality upon the caprice and 
upon the imagination of men ; it is basing it upon 
the whims of a sect, faction, or party, who, exclud- 
ing all others, claim to have the advantage of wor- 
shiping the true God. 

To establish morality, or the duties of man, upon 
the Divine will, is founding it upon the wishes, the 
reveries, or the interests of those who make God 
talk without fear of contradiction. In every re- 
ligion the priests alone have the right to decide 


228 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

upon what pleases or displeases their God ; we may 
rest assured that they will decide upon what pleases 
or displeases themselves. 

The dogmas, ceremonies, the morality and the 
virtues which all religions of the world prescribe, 
are visibly calculated only to extend the power or 
to increase the emoluments of the founders and 
of the ministers of these religions ; the dogmas are 
obscure, inconceivable, frightful, and, thereby, very 
liable to cause the imagination to wander, and to 
render the common man more docile to those who 
wish to domineer over him ; the ceremonies and 
practices procure fortune or consideration to the 
priests ; the religious morals and virtues consist in 
a submissive faith, which prevents reasoning ; in a 
devout humility, which assures to the priests the 
submission of their slaves ; in an ardent zeal, when 
the question of religion is agitated ; that is to say, 
when the interest of these priests is considered, 
all religious virtues having evidently for their ob- 
ject the advantage of the priests. 

CLXIX.— WHAT DOES THAT CHRISTIAN CHARITY 
AMOUNT TO, SUCH AS THEOLOGIANS TEACH 
AND PRACTICE? 

When we reproach the theologians with the 
sterility of their religious virtues, they praise, with 
emphasis, charity, that tender love of our neighbor 
which Christianity makes an essential duty for its 
disciples. But, alas ! what becomes of this pre- 
tended charity as soon as we examine the actions 
of the Lord’s ministers? Ask if you must love 


What does Christian Charity Amount to? 229 

your neighbor if he is impious, heretical, and in- 
credulous, that is to say, if he does not think as 
they do ? Ask them if you must tolerate opinions 
contrary to those which they profess ? Ask them 
if the Lord can show indulgence to those who are 
in error? Immediately their charity disappears, 
and the dominating clergy will tell you that the 
prince carries the sword but to sustain the interests 
of the Most High ; they will tell you that for love 
of the neighbor, you must persecute, imprison, ex- 
ile, or burn him. You will find tolerance among a 
few priests who are persecuted themselves, but who 
put aside Christian charity as soon as they have the 
power to persecute in their turn. 

The Christian religion which was originally 
preached by beggars and by very wretched men, 
strongly recommends alms-giving under the name 
of charity ; the faith of Mohammed equally 
makes it an indispensable duty. Nothing, no 
doubt, is better suited to humanity than to as 
sist the unfortunate, to clothe the naked, to lend 
a charitable hand to whoever needs it. But would 
it not be more humane and more charitable to 
foresee the misery and to prevent the poor from 
increasing? If religion, instead of deifying princes, 
had but taught them to respect the property of 
their subjects, to be just, and to exercise but 
their legitimate ights, we should not see such a 
great number of mendicants in their realms. A 
greedy, unjust, tyrannical government multiplies 
misery; the rigor of taxes produces discourage- 
ment, idleness, indigence, which, on their part, 


230 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier. 

produce robbery, murders, and all kinds of crime. 
If the sovereigns had more humanity, charity, and 
justice, their States would not be peopled by so 
many unfortunate ones whose misery becomes im- 
possible to soothe. 

The Christian and Mohammedan States are 
filled with vast and richly endowed hospitals, in 
which we admire the pious charity of the kings and 
of the sultans who erected them. Would it not have 
been more humane to govern the people well, to 
procure them ease, to excite and to favor industry 
and trade, to permit them to enjoy in safety the 
fruits of their labors, than to oppress them under a 
despotic yoke, to impoverish them by senseless 
wars, to reduce them to mendicity in order to grat- 
ify an immoderate luxury, and afterward build 
sumptuous monuments which can contain but a 
very small portion of those whom they have ren- 
dered miserable ? Religion, by its virtues, has but 
given a change to men ; instead of foreseeing evils, 
it applies but insufficient remedies. The ministers 
of Heaven have always known how to benefit 
themselves by the calamities of others; public 
misery became their element ; they made them- 
selves the administrators of the goods of the poor, 
the distributors of alms, the depositaries of chari- 
ties; thereby they extended and sustained at all 
times their power over the unfortunates who usual- 
ly compose the most numerous, the most anxious, 
the most seditious part of society. Thus the great- 
est evils are made profitable to the ministers of 
the Lord. 


What does Christian Charity Amount to ? 231 

The Christian priests tell us that the goods which 
they possess are the goods of the poor, and pretend 
by this title that their possessions are sacred ; con- 
sequently, the sovereigns and the people press 
themselves to accumulate lands, revenues, treas- 
ures for them ; under pretext of charity, our spirit- 
ual guides have become very opulent, and enjoy, 
in the sight of the impoverished nations, goods 
which were destined but for the miserable ; the lat- 
ter, far from murmuring about it, applaud a de- 
ceitful generosity which enriches the Church , but 
which very rarely alleviates the sufferings of the 
poor. 

According to the principles of Christianity, pov- 
erty itself is a virtue, and it is this virtue which the 
sovereigns and the priests make their slaves ob- 
serve the most. According to these ideas, a great 
number of pious Christians have renounced with 
good-will the perishable riches of the earth ; have 
distributed their patrimony to the poor, and have 
retired into a desert to live a life of voluntary indi- 
gence. But very soon this enthusiasm, this super- 
natural taste for misery, must surrender to nature. 
The successors to these voluntary poor, sold to the 
religious people their prayers and their powerful 
intercession with the Deity ; they became rich and 
powerful ; thus, monks and hermits lived in idle- 
ness, and, under the pretext of charity, devoured 
insultingly the substance of the poor. Poverty of 
spirit was that of which religion made always the 
greatest use. The fundamental virtue of all relig- 
ion, that is to say, the most useful one to its minis- 


232 Common Sense, by Jean Meslier . 

ters, is faith. It consists in an unlimited credulity, 
which causes men to believe, without examination, 
all that which the interpreters of the Deity wish 
them to believe. With the aid of this wonderful 
virtue, the priests became the arbiters of justice 
and of injustice; of good and of evil; they found 
it easy to commit crimes when crimes became 
necessary to their interests. Implicit faith has 
been the source of the greatest outrages which 
have been committed upon the earth. 

CLXX. — CONFESSION, THAT GOLDEN MINE FOR THE 
PRIESTS, HAS DESTROYED THE TRUE PRINCI- 
PLES OF MORALITY. 

He who first proclaimed to the nations that, 
when man had wronged man, he must ask God’s 
pardon, appease His wrath by presents, and offer 
Him sacrifices, obviously subverted the true prin- 
ciples of morality. According to these ideas, men 
imagine that they can obtain from the King of 
Heaven, as well as from the kings of the earth, per- 
mission to be unjust and wicked, or at least pardon 
for the evil which they might commit. 

Morality is founded upon the relations, the needs, 
and the constant interests of the inhabitants of the 
earth; the relations which subsist between men 
and God are either entirely unknown or imaginary. 
The religion associating God with men has visibly 
weakened or destroyed the ties which unite men. 

Mortals imagine that they can, with impunity, 
injure each other by making a suitable reparation 
to the Almighty Being, who is supposed to have 


Confession the Priests' Golden Mine. 233 

the right to remit all the injuries done to His 
creatures. Is there anything more liable to en- 
courage wickedness and to embolden to crime, than 
to persuade men that there exists an invisible be- 
ing who has the right to pardon injustice, rapine, 
perfidy, and all the outrages they can inflict upon 
society ? Encouraged by these fatal ideas, we see 
the most perverse men abandon themselves to the 
greatest crimes, and expect to repair them by im- 
ploring Divine mercy ; their conscience rests in 
peace when a priest assures them that Heaven is 
quieted by sincere repentance, which is very useless 
to the world ; this priest consoles them in the name 
of Deity, if they consent in reparation of their faults 
to divide with His ministers the fruits of their plun- 
derings, of their frauds, and of their wickedness. 
Morality united to religion, becomes necessarily 
subordinate to it. In the mind of a religious per- 
son, God must be preferred to His creatures ; “ It 
is better to obey Him than men ! ” The interests 
of the Celestial Monarch must be above those of 
weak mortals. But the interests of Heaven are 
evidently the interests of the ministers of Heaven ; 
from which it follows evidently, that in all religions, 
the priests, under pretext of Heaven’s in eres s, or 
of God’s glory, will be able to dispense with the 
duties of human morals when they do not agree 
with the duties which God is entitled to impose. 

Besides, He who has the power to pardon crimes, 
has He not the right to order them committed ? 


234 


Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 


CLXXI.— THE SUPPOSITION OF THE EXISTENCE 

OF A GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TO MORALITY. 

We are constantly told that without a God, there 
can be no moral obligation ; that it is necessary for 
men and for the sovereigns themselves to have a 
lawgiver sufficiently powerful to compel them to 
be moral ; moral obligation implies a law ; but this 
law arises from the eternal and necessary relations 
of things among themselves, which have nothing 
in common with the existence of a God. The rules 
which govern men’s conduct spring from their own 
nature, which they are supposed to know, and not 
from the Divine nature, of which they have no con- 
ception ; these rules compel us to render ourselves 
estimable or contemptible, amiable or hateful, 
worthy of reward or of punishments, happy or un- 
happy, according to the extent to which we observe 
them. The law that compels man not to harm 
himself, is inherent in the nature of a sensible 
being, who, no matter how he came into this 
world, or what can be his fate in another, is com- 
pelled by his very nature to seek his welfare and 
to shun evil, to love pleasure and to fear pain. The 
law which compels a man not to harm others and 
to do good, is inherent in the nature of sensible 
beings living in society, who, by their nature, are 
compelled to despise those who do them no good, 
and to detest those who oppose their happiness. 
Whether there exists a God or not, whether this 
God has spoken or not, men’s moral duties will 
always be the same so long as they possess theii 


Religion Opposed to Man's Nature. 235 

own nature ; that is to say, so long as they are 
sensible beings. Do men need a God whom they 
do not know, or an invisible lawgiver, or a mys- 
terious religion, or chimerical fears in order to 
comprehend that all excess tends ultimately to de- 
stroy them, and that in order to preserve them- 
selves they must abstain from it ; that in order to 
be loved by others, they must do good ; that doing 
evil is a sure means of incurring their hatred and 
vengeance ? “ Before the law there was no sin.” 

Nothing is more false than this maxim. It is 
enough for a man to be what he is, to be a sensible 
being in order to distinguish that which pleases or 
displeases him. It is enough that a man knows 
that another man is a sensible being like himself, 
in order for him to know what is useful or injurious 
to him. It is enough that man needs his fellow- 
creature, in order that he should fear that he might 
produce unfavorable impressions upon him. Thus 
a sentient and thinking being needs but to feel and 
to think, in order to discover that which is due to 
him and to others. I feel, and another feels, like 
myself ; this is the foundation of all morality. 

CLXXII.— RELIGION AND ITS SUPERNATURAL MO- 
RALITY ARE FATAL TO THE PEOPLE, AND 
OPPOSED TO MAN'S NATURE. 

We can judge of the merit of a system of morals 
but by its conformity with man’s nature. Accord- 
ing to this comparison, we have a right to reject it, 
if we find it detrimental to the welfare of mankind. 
Whoever has seriously meditated upon religion and 


236 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

its supernatural morality, whoever has weighed its 
advantages and disadvantages, will become con- 
vinced that they are both injurious to the interests 
of the human race, or directly opposed to man’s 
nature. 

“ People , to arms ! Your God's cause is at stake ! 
Heaven is outraged! Faith is in danger ! Down 
upon infidelity , blasphemy , and heresy ! ” 

By the magical power of these valiant words, 
which the people never understand, the priests in 
all ages were the leaders in the revolts of nations, 
in dethroning kings, in kindling civil wars, and in 
imprisoning men. When we chance to examine 
the important objects which have excited the Celes- 
tial wrath and produced so many ravages upon the 
earth, it is found that the foolish reveries and the 
strange conjectures of some theologian who did 
not understand himself, or, the pretensions of the 
clergy, have severed all ties of society and inun- 
dated the human race in its own blood and tears. 

CLXXIII. — HOW THE UNION OF RELIGION AND 
POLITICS IS FATAL TO THE PEOPLE AND TO 
THE KINGS. 

The sovereigns of this world in associating the 
Deity in the government of their realms, in pre- 
tending to be His lieutenants and His representa- 
tives upon earth, in admitting that they hold their 
power from Him, must necessarily accept His min- 
isters as rivals or as masters. Is it, then, astonishing 
that the priests have often made the kings feel the 
superiority of the Celestial Monarch ? Have they 


The Union of Religion and Politics Fatal. 237 

not more than once made the temporal princes 
understand that the greatest physical power is 
compelled to surrender to the spiritual power of 
opinion ? Nothing is more difficult than to serve 
two masters, especially when they do not agree 
upon what they demand of their subjects. The 
inion of religion with politics has necessarily caused 
a double legislation in the States. The law of God, 
interpreted by His priests, is often contrary to the 
law of the sovereign or to the interest of the State. 
When the princes are firm, and sure of the love of 
their subjects, God’s law is sometimes obliged to 
comply with the wise intentions of the temporal 
sovereign ; but more often the sovereign authority 
is obliged to retreat before the Divine authority, 
that is to say, before the interests of the clergy. 
Nothing is more dangerous for a prince, than to 
meddle with ecclesiastical affairs {to put his hands 
into the holy-water pot), that is to say, to attempt 
the reform of abuses consecrated by religion. God 
is never more angry than when the Divine rights, 
the privileges, the possessions, and the immunities 
of His priests are interfered with. 

Metaphysical speculations or the religious opin- 
ions of men, never influence their conduct except 
when they believe them conformed to their inter- 
ests. Nothing proves this truth more forcibly than 
the conduct of a great number of princes in regard 
to the spiritual power, which we see them very 
often resist. Should not a sovereign who is per- 
suaded of the importance and the rights of relig- 
ion, conscientiously feel himself obliged to receive 


238 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier, 

with respect the orders of his priests, and considei 
them as commandments of the Deity ? There was 
a time when the kings and the people, more con- 
formable, and convinced of the rights of the spirit- 
ual power, became its slaves, surrendered to it on 
all occasions, and were but docile instruments in 
its hands ; this happy time is no more. By a 
strange inconsistency, we sometimes see the most 
religious monarchs oppose the enterprises of 
those whom they regard as God’s ministers. A 
sovereign who is filled with religion or respect for 
his God, ought to be constantly prostrate before 
his priests, and regard them as his true sovereigns. 
Is there a power upon the earth which has the 
right to measure itself with that of the Most High ? 

CLXXIV.— CREEDS ARE BURDENSOME AND RUIN- 
OUS TO THE MAJORITY OF NATIONS. 

Have the princes who believe themselves inter- 
ested in propagating the prejudices of their sub- 
jects, reflected well upon the effects which are pro- 
duced by privileged demagogues, who have the 
right to speak when they choose, and excite in the 
name of Heaven the passions of many millions of 
their subjects? What ravages would not these 
holy haranguers cause should they conspire to dis- 
turb a State, as they have so often done ? 

Nothing is more onerous and more ruinous for 
the greatest part of the nations than the worship 
of their Gods! Everywhere their ministers not 
only rank as the first order in the State, but also 
enjoy the greater portion of society’s benefits, and 


Religion Paralyzes Morality. 239 

have the right to levy continual taxes upon their 
fellow-citizens. What real advantages do these 
organs of the Most High procure for the people in 
exchange for the immense profits which they draw 
from them ? Do they give them in exchange for 
their wealth and their courtesies anything but mys- 
teries, hypotheses, ceremonies, subtle questions, in- 
terminable quarrels, which very often their States 
must pay for with their blood ? 

CLXXV. — RELIGION PARALYZES MORALITY. 

Religion, which claims to be the firmest support 
of morality, evidently deprives it of its true motor, 
to substitute imaginary motors, inconceivable chi- 
meras, which, being obviously contrary to common 
sense, can not be firmly believed by any one. Ev- 
erybody assures us that he believes firmly in a God 
who rewards and punishes ; everybody claims to be 
persuaded of the existence of a hell and of a Para- 
dise ; however, do we see that these ideas render 
men better or counterbalance in the minds of the 
greatest number of them the slightest interest? 
Each one assures us that he is afraid of God’s judg- 
ments, although each one gives vent to his passions 
when he believes himself sure of escaping the judg- 
ments of men. The fear of invisible powers is rarely 
as great as the fear of visible powers. Unknown or 
distant sufferings make less impression upon people 
than the erected gallows, or the example of a 
hanged man. There is scarcely any courtier who 
fears God’s anger more than the displeasure of his 
master. A pension, a title, a ribbon, are sufficient 


240 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

to make one forget the torments of hell and the 
pleasures of the celestial court. A woman’s caresses 
expose him every day to the displeasure of the 
Most High. A joke, a banter, a bon-mot, make 
more impression upon the man of the world than 
all the grave notions of his religion. Are we not 
assured that a true repentance is sufficient to ap- 
pease Divinity? However, we do not see that this 
true repentance is sincerely expressed ; at least, we 
very rarely see great thieves, even in the hour of 
death, restore the goods which they know they 
have unjustly acquired. Men persuade themselves, 
no doubt, that they will submit to the eternal fire, 
if they can not guarantee themselves against it. 
But as settlements can be made with Heaven by 
giving the Church a portion of their fortunes, there 
are very few religious thieves who do not die per- 
fectly quieted about the manner in which they 
gained their riches in this world. 

CLXXVI. — FATAL CONSEQUENCES OF PIETY. 

Even by the confession of the most ardent de- 
fenders of religion and of its usefulness, nothing is 
more rare than sincere conversions ; to which we 
might add, nothing is more useless to society. 
Men do not become disgusted with the world until 
the world is disgusted with them ; a woman gives 
herself to God only when the world no longer 
wants her. Her vanity finds in religious devotion 
a role which occupies her and consoles her for the 
ruin of her charms. She passes her time in the 
most trifling practices, parties, intrigues, invectives, 


Hope of Future Life Unnecessary to Morality. 241 

and slander; zeal furnishes her the means of dis- 
tinguishing herself and becoming an object of con- 
sideration in the religious circle. If the bigots 
have the talent to please God and His priests, they 
rarely possess that of pleasing society or of render- 
ing themselves useful to it. Religion for a devotee 
is a veil which covers and justifies all his passions, 
his pride, his bad humor, his anger, his vengeance, 
his impatience, his bitterness. Religion arrogates 
to itself a tyrannical superiority which banishes 
from commerce all gentleness, gayety, and joy ; it 
gives the right to censure others ; to capture and 
to exterminate the infidels for the glory of God ; it 
is very common to be religious and to have none 
of the virtues or the }ualities necessary to social 
life. 

CLXXVII. — THE SUPPOSITION OF ANOTHER LIFE 
IS NEITHER CONSOLING TO MAN NOR NECES- 
SARY TO MORALITY. 

We are assured that the dogma of another life is 
of the greatest importance to the peace of society ; 
it is imagined that without it men would have no 
motives for doing good. Why do we need terrors 
and fables to teach any reasonable man how he 
ought to conduct himself upon earth? Does not 
each one of us see that he has the greatest interest 
in deserving the approbation, esteem, and kindness 
of the beings which surround him, and in avoiding 
all that can cause the censure, the contempt, and 
the resentment of society? No matter how short 
the duration of a festival, of a conversation, or of a 


242 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

visit may be, does not each one of us wish to act a 
befitting part in it, agreeable to himself and to 
others ? If life is but a passage, let us try to make 
it easy ; it can not be so if we lack the regards of 
those who travel with us. 

Religion, which is so sadly occupied with its 
gloomy reveries, represents man to us as but a pil- 
grim upon earth ; it concludes that in order to 
travel with more safety, he should travel alone ; 
renounce the pleasures which he meets and deprive 
himself of the amusements which could console him 
for the fatigues and the weariness of the road. A 
stoical and morose philosophy sometimes gives us 
counsels as senseless as religion ; but a more ra- 
tional philosophy inspires us to strew flowers on 
life’s pathway ; to dispel melancholy and panic ter- 
rors ; to link our interests with those of our travel- 
ing companions ; to divert ourselves by gayety and 
honest pleasures from the pains and the crosses to 
which we are so often exposed. We are made to 
feel, that in order to travel pleasantly, we should 
abstain from that which could become injurious to 
ourselves, and to avoid with great care that which 
could make us odious to our associates. 

CLXXVIII. — AN ATHEIST HAS MORE MOTIVES FOR 
ACTING UPRIGHTLY, MORE CONSCIENCE, THAN 
A RELIGIOUS PERSON. 

It is asked what motives has an atheist for do- 
ing right. He can have the motive of pleasing 
himself and his fellow-creatures ; of living happily 
and tranquilly ; of making himself loved and re- 


An Atheist's Motives. 


243 


spected by men, whose existence and whose dis- 
positions are better known than those of a being 
impossible to understand. Can he who fears not 
the Gods, fear anything ? He can fear men, their 
contempt, their disrespect, and the punishments 
which the laws inflict ; finally, he can fear himself ; 
he can be afraid of the remorse that all those ex- 
perience whose conscience reproaches them for 
having deserved the hatred of their fellow-beings. 
Conscience is the inward testimony which we ren- 
der to ourselves for having acted in such a manner 
as to deserve the esteem or the censure of those 
with whom we associate. This conscience is based 
upon the knowledge which we have of men, and 
of the sentiments which our actions must awaken 
in them. A religious person’s conscience persuades 
him that he has pleased or displeased his God, of 
whom he has no idea, and whose obscure and 
doubtful intentions are explained to him only by 
suspicious men, who know no more of the essence 
of Divinity than he does, and who do not agree 
upon what can please or displease God. In a word, 
the conscience of a credulous man is guided by 
men whose own conscience is in error, or whose 
interest extinguishes intelligence. 

Can an atheist have conscience ? What are his 
motives for abstaining from secret vices and crimes 
of which other men are ignorant, and which are 
beyond the reach of laws ? He can be assured by 
constant experience that there is no vice which, in 
the nature of things, does not bring its own pun- 
ishment. If he wishes to preserve himself, he will 


244 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

avoid all those excesses which can be injurious to 
his health ; he would not desire to live and linger, 
thus becoming a burden to himself and others. 
In regard to secret crimes, he would avoid them 
through fear of being ashamed of himself, from 
whom he can not hide. If he has reason, he will 
know the price of the esteem that an honest man 
should have for himself. He will know, besides, 
that unexpected circumstances can unveil to the 
eyes of others the conduct which he feels inter- 
ested in concealing. The other world gives no 
motive for doing well to him who finds no motive 
for it here. 

CLXXIX. — AN ATHEISTICAL KING WOULD BE PREF- 
ERABLE TO ONE WHO IS RELIGIOUS AND 
WICKED, AS WE OFTEN SEE THEM. 

The speculating atheist, the theist will tell us, 
may be an honest man, but his writings will cause 
atheism in politics. Princes and ministers, being 
no longer restrained by the fear of God, will give 
themselves up without scruple to the most fright- 
ful excesses. But no matter what we can suppose 
of the depravity of an atheist on a throne, can it 
ever be any greater or more injurious than that of 
so many conquerors, tyrants, persecutors, of am- 
bitious and perverse courtiers, who, without being 
atheists, but who, being very often religious, do 
not cease to make humanity groan under the 
weight of their crimes? Can an atheistical king 
inflict more evil on the world than a Louis XI., a 
Philip II., a Richelieu, who have all allied religion 


Morality is Acquired by Philosophy. 245 

with crime? Nothing is rarer than atheistical 
princes, and nothing more common than very bad 
and very religious tyrants. 

CLXXX— THE MORALITY ACQUIRED BY PHILOSO- 
PHY IS SUFFICIENT TO VIRTUE. 

Any man who reflects can not fail of knowing 
his duties, of discovering the relations which sub- 
sist between men, of meditating upon his own nat- 
ure, of discerning his needs, his inclinations, and 
his desires, and of perceiving what he owes to the 
beings necessary to his own happiness. These re- 
flections naturally lead to the knowledge of the 
morality which is the most essential for society. 
Every man who loves to retire within himself in 
order to study and seek for the principles of things, 
has no very dangerous passions ; his greatest pas- 
sion will be to know the truth, and his greatest 
ambition to show it to others. Philosophy is bene- 
ficial in cultivating the heart and the mind. In re- 
gard to morals, has not he who reflects and reasons 
the advantage over him who does not reason ? 

If ignorance is useful to priests and to the op- 
pressors of humanity, it is very fatal to society. 
Man, deprived of intelligence, does not enjoy the 
use of his reason ; man, deprived of reason and in- 
telligence, is a savage, who is liable at any moment 
to be led into crime. Morality, or the science of 
moral duties, is acquired but by the study of man 
and his relations. He who does not reflect for him- 
self does not know true morals, and can not walk 
the road of virtue. The less men reason, the more 


246 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

wicked they are. The barbarians, the princes, the 
great, and the dregs of society, are generally the 
most wicked because they are those who reason the 
least. The religious man never reflects, and avoids 
reasoning ; he fears examination ; he follows au- 
thority ; and very often an erroneous conscience 
makes him consider it a holy duty to commit evil. 
The incredulous man reasons, consults experience, 
and prefers it to prejudice. If he has reasoned 
justly, his conscience becomes clear ; he finds more 
real motives for right-doing than the religious man, 
who has no motives but his chimeras, and who never 
listens to reason. Are not the motives of the in- 
credulous man strong enough to counterbalance 
his passions ? Is he blind enough not to recognize 
the interests which should restrain him ? Well ! 
he will be vicious and wicked ; but even then he 
will be no worse and no better than many credu- 
lous men who, notwithstanding religion and its 
sublime precepts, continue to lead a life which this 
very religion condemns. Is a credulous murderer 
less to be feared than a murderer who does not be- 
lieve anything? Is a religious tyrant any less a 
tyrant than an irreligious one ? 

CLXXXI. — OPINIONS RARELY INFLUENCE CONDUCT. 

There is nothing more rare in the world than 
consistent men. Their opinions do not influence 
their conduct, except when they conform to their 
temperament, their passions, and to their inter- 
ests. Religious opinions, according to daily expe- 
rience, produce much more evil than good ; they are 


Opinions Rarely Influence Conduct. 247 

injurious, because they very often agree with the 
passions of tyrants, fanatics, and priests ; they pro- 
duce no effect, because they have not the power to 
balance the present interests of the majority of 
men. Religious principles are always put aside 
when they are opposed to ardent desires ; without 
being incredulous, they act as if they believed 
nothing. We risk being deceived when we judge 
the opinions of men by their conduct or their con- 
duct by their opinions. A very religious man, not- 
withstanding the austere and cruel principles of a 
bloody religion, will sometimes be, by a fortunate 
inconsistency, humane, tolerant, moderate ; in this 
case the principles of his religion do not agree with 
the mildness of his disposition. A libertine, a de- 
bauchee, a hypocrite, an adulterer, or a thief will 
often show us that he has the clearest ideas of mor- 
als. Why do they not practice them? It is be- 
cause neither their temperament, their interests, 
nor their habits agree with their sublime theories. 
The rigid principles of Christian morality, which so 
many attempt to pass off as Divine, have but very 
little influence upon the conduct of those who 
preach them to others. Do they not tell us every 
day to do what they preach, and not what they 
practice ? 

The religious partisans generally designate the 
incredulous as libertines. It may be that many in- 
credulous people are immoral; this immorality is 
due to their temperament, and not to their opin- 
ions. But what has their conduct to do with these 
opinions? Can not an immoral man be a good 


248 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

physician, a good architect, a good geometer, a 
good logician, a good metaphysician? With an 
irreproachable conduct, one can be ignorant upon 
many things, and reason very badly. When truth 
is presented, it matters not from whom it comes. 
Let us not judge men by their opinions, or opin- 
ions by men; let us judge men by their conduct ; 
and their opinions by their conformity with expe- 
rience, reason, and their usefulness for mankind. 

CLXXXII. — REASON LEADS MEN TO IRRELIGION 
AND VO ATHEISM, BECAUSE RELIGION IS 
ABSURD, AND THE GOD OF THE PRIESTS IS 
A MALICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS BEING. 

Every man who reasons soon becomes incredu- 
lous, because reasoning proves to him that theolo- 
gy is but a tissue of falsehoods; that religion is 
contrary to all principles of common sense ; that it 
gives a false color to all human knowledge. The 
rational man becomes incredulous, because he sees 
that religion, far from rendering men happier, is 
the first cause of the greatest disorders, and of the 
permanent calamities with which the human race 
is afflicted. The man who seeks his well-being and 
his own tranquillity, examines his religion and is un- 
deceived, because he finds it inconvenient and use- 
less to pass his life in trembling at phantoms which 
are made but to intimidate silly women or children. 
If, sometimes, libertinage, which reasons but little, 
leads to irreligion, the man who is regular in his 
morals can have very legitimate motives for exam- 
ining his religion, and for banishing it from his 


Fear Alone Creates Theists and Bigots. 249 

mind. Too weak to intimidate the wicked, in 
whom vice has become deeply rooted, religious 
terrors afflict, torment, and burden imaginative 
minds. If souls have courage and elasticity, they 
shake off a yoke which they bear unwillingly. If 
weak or timorous, they wear the yoke during their 
whole life, and they grow old, trembling, or at least 
they live under burdensome uncertainty. 

The priests have made of God such a malicious, 
ferocious being, so ready to be vexed, that there 
are few men in the world who do not wish at the 
bottom of their hearts that this God did not exist. 
We can not live happy if we are always in fear. 
You worship a terrible God, O religious people! 
Alas! And yet you hate Him; you wish that He 
was not. Can we avoid wishing the absence or the 
destruction of a master, the idea of whom can but 
torment the mind ? It is the dark colors in which 
the priests paint the Deity which revolt men, mov 
ing them to hate and reject Him. 

CLXXXIII.— FEAR ALONE CREATES THEISTS AND 
BIGOTS. 

If fear has created the Gods, fear still holds their 
empire in the mind of mortals ; they have been so 
early accustomed to tremble even at the name of 
the Deity, that it has become for them a specter, a 
goblin, a were-wolf which torments them, and whose 
idea deprives them even of the courage to attempt 
to reassure themselves. They are afraid that this 
invisible specter will strike them if they cease to 
be afraid. The religious people fear their God too 


2 $0 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

much to love Him sincerely ; they serve Him as 
slaves, who can not escape His power, and take 
the part of flattering their Master ; and who, by 
continually lying, persuade themselves that they 
love Him. They make a virtue of necessity. The 
love of religious bigots for their God, and of slaves 
for their despots, is but a servile and simulated 
homage which they render by compulsion, in which 
the heart has no part. 

CLXXXIV— CAN WE, OR SHOULD WE, LOVE OR 
NOT LOVE GOD? 

The Christian Doctors have made their God so 
little worthy of love, that several among them have 
thought it their duty not to love Him ; this is a 
blasphemy which makes less sincere doctors trem- 
ble. Saint Thomas, having asserted that we are 
under obligation to love God as soon as we can use 
our reason, the Jesuit Sirmond replied to him 
that that was very soon ; the Jesuit Vasquez claims 
that it is sufficient to love God in the hour of 
death ; Hurtado says that we should love God at 
all times ; Henriquez is content with loving Him 
every five years ; Sotus, every Sunday. “ Upon 
what shall we rely?” asks Father Sirmond, who 
adds : “ that Suarez desires that we should love 
God sometimes. But at what time ? He allows 
you to judge of it ; he knows nothing about it him- 
self; for he adds: ‘What a learned doctor does 
not know, who can know?’” The same Jesuit 
Sirmond continues, by saying : “ that God does 
not command us to love Him with human affection, 


Contradictory Ideas of God and Religion. 251 

and does not promise us salvation but on condition 
of giving Him our hearts ; it is enough to obey 
Him and to love Him, by fulfilling His command- 
ments ; that this is the only love which we owe 
Him, and He has not commanded so much to love 
Him as not to hate Him.”* This doctrine ap- 
pears heretical, ungodly, and abominable to the Jan- 
senists, who, by the revolting severity which they 
attribute to their God, render Him still less lovable 
than their adversaries, the Jesuits. The latter, in 
order to make converts, represent God in such a 
light as to give confidence to the most perverse 
mortals. Thus, nothing is less established among 
the Christians than the important question, wheth- 
er we can or should love or not love God. Among 
their spiritual guides some pretend that we must 
love God with all the heart, notwi hstanding all His 
severity; others, like the Father Daniel, think that 
an act of pure love of God is the most heroic act 
of Christian virtue, and that human weakness can 
scarcely reach so high. The Jesuit Pintereau goes 
still further ; he says : “ The deliverance from the 
grievous yoke of Divine love is a privilege of the 
new alliance.” 

CLXXXV. — THE VARIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY 
IDEAS WHICH EXIST EVERYWHERE UPON GOD 
AND RELIGION, PROVE THAT THEY ARE BUT 
IDLE FANCIES. 

It is always the character of man which decides 


* See “ Apology, Des Lettres Provinciates,” Tome II. 


25 2 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

upon the character of his God ; each one creates a 
God for himself, and in his own image. The cheer- 
ful man who indulges in pleasures and dissipation, 
can not imagine God to be an austere and rebuke- 
ful being ; he requires a facile God with whom he 
can make an agreement. The severe, sour, bilious 
man wants a God like himself; one who inspires 
fear ; and regards as perverse those that accept only 
a God who is yielding and easily won over. Here- 
sies, quarrels, and schisms are necessary. Can men 
differently organized and modified by diverse cir- 
cumstances, agree in regard to an imaginary being 
which exists but in their own brains ? The cruel 
and interminable disputes continually arising among 
the ministers of the Lord, have not a tendency to 
attract the confidence of those who take an impar- 
tial view of them. How can we help our incredu- 
lity, when we see principles about which those who 
teach them to others, never agree ? How can we 
avoid doubting the existence of a God, the idea of 
whom varies in such a remarkable way in the mind 
of His ministers ? How can we avoid rejecting 
totally a God who is full of contradictions ? How 
can we rely upon priests whom we see continually 
contending, accusing each other of being infidels 
and heretics, rending and persecuting each other 
without mercy, about the way in which they under- 
stand the pretended truths which they reveal tc 
the world ? 


Priests Act from Self-Interest . 253 

CLXXXVI. — THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, WHICH IS 
THE BASIS OF ALL RELIGION, HAS NOT YET 
BEEN DEMONSTRATED. 

However, so far, this important truth has not 
yet been demonstrated, not only to the incredu- 
lous, but in a satisfactory way to theologians them- 
selves. In all times, we have seen profound think- 
ers who thought they had new proofs of the truth 
most important to men. What have been the fruits 
of their meditations and of their arguments ? They 
left the thing at the same point ; they have dem- 
onstrated nothing ; nearly always they have ex- 
cited the clamors of their colleagues, who accuse 
them of having badly defended the best of causes. 

CLXXXVII. — PRIESTS, MORE THAN UNBELIEVERS, 
ACT FROM INTEREST. 

The apologists of religion repeat to us every day 
that the passions alone create unbelievers. “ It 
is,” they say, “ pride, and a desire to distinguish 
themselves, that make atheists ; they seek also to 
efface the idea of God from their minds, because 
they have reason to fear His rigorous judgments.” 
Whatever may be the motives which cause men to 
be irreligious, the thing in question is whether they 
have found truth. No man acts without motives ; 
let us first examine the arguments — we shall exam- 
ine the motives afterward — and we shall find that 
they are more legitimate, and more sensible, than 
those of many credulous devotees who allow them- 
selves to be guided by masters little worthy of men's 
confidence. 


254 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

You say, O priests of the Lord ! that the passions 
cause unbelievers ; you pretend that they renounce 
religion through interest, or because it interferes 
with their irregular inclinations ; you assert that 
they attack your Gods because they fear their pun- 
ishments. Ah ! yourselves in defending this religion 
and its chimeras, are you, then, really exempt from 
passions and interests? Who receive the fees of this 
religion, on whose behalf the priests are so zealous ? 
It is the priests. To whom does religion procure 
power, credit, honors, wealth ? To the priests ! In 
all countries, who make war upon reason, science, 
truth, and philosophy and render them odious to 
the sovereigns and to the people ? Who profit by 
the ignorance of men and their vain prejudices? 
The priests! .You are, O priests, rewarded, hon- 
ored, and paid for deceiving mortals, and you pun- 
ish those who undeceive them. The follies of men 
procure you blessings, offerings, expiations; the 
most useful truths bring to those who announce 
them, chains, sufferings, stakes. Let the world 
judge between us. 

CLXXXVIII.— PRIDE, PRESUMPTION, AND CORRUP- 
TION OF THE HEART ARE MORE OFTEN 
FOUND AMONG PRIESTS THAN AMONG ATHE- 
ISTS AND UNBELIEVERS. 

Pride and vanity always were and always will be 
the inherent vices of the priesthood. Is there any- 
thing that has a tendency to render men haughty 
and vain more than the assumption of exercising 
Heavenly power, of possessing a sacred character, 


The Inherent Vices of the Priesthood . 255 

of being the messengers of the Most High? Are 
not these dispositio ns continually increased by the 
credulity of the people, by the deference and the 
respect oFTfie sovereigns, by the immunities, the 
privileges, and the distinctions which the clergy 
enjoy? The common man is, in every country, 
more devoted to his spiritual guides, whom he con- 
siders as Divine men, than to his temporal superi- 
ors, whom he considers as ordinary men. Village 
priests enjoy more honor than the lord or the 
judge. A Christian priest believes himself far 
above a king or an emperor. A Spanish grandee 
having spoken hastily to a monk, the latter said to 
him, arrogantly, “ Learn to respect a man who has 
every day your God in his hands and your queen 
at his feet.” 

Have the priests any right to accuse the unbe- 
lievers of pride? Do they distinguish themselves 
by a rare modesty or profound humility? Is it not 
evident that the desire to domineer over men is the 
essence of their profession? If the Lord’s minis- 
ters were truly modest, would we see them so 
greedy of respect, so easily irritated by contradic- 
tions, so prompt and so cruel in revenging them- 
selves upon those whose opinions offend them? 
Does not modest science impress us with the diffi- 
culty of unraveling truth ? What other passion than 
frenzied pride can render men so ferocious, so vin- 
dictive, so devoid of toleration and gentleness? 
What is more presumptuous than to arm nations 
and cause rivers of blood, in order to establish or 
to defend futile conjectures ? 




256 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

You say, O Doctors of Divinity! that it is pre- 
sumption alone which makes atheists. Teach them, 
then, what your God is ; instruct them about His 
essence; speak of Him in an intelligible way ; tell 
of Him reasonable things, which are not contradic- 
tory or impossible ! If you are not in the condi- 
tion to satisfy them ; if, so far, none of you have 
been able to demonstrate the existence of a God in 
a clear and convincing way ; if, according to your 
own confession, His essence is as much hidden from 
you as from the rest of mortals, pardon those who 
can not admit that which they can neither under- 
stand nor reconcile. Do not accuse of presumption 
and vanity those who have the sincerity to confess 
their ignorance ; accuse not of folly those who find 
it impossible to believe in contradictions. You 
should blush at the thought of exciting the hatred 
of the people and the vengeance of the sovereigns 
against men who do not think as you do upon a 
Being of whom you have no idea yourselves. Is 
there anything more audacious and more extrava- 
gant than to reason about an object which it is im- 
possible to conceive of? 

You tell us it is corruption of the heart which 
produces atheists ; that they shake off the yoke of 
the Deity because they fear His terrible judgments. 
But why do you paint your God in such black col- 
ors? Why does this powerful God permit that 
such corrupt hearts should exist ? Why should we 
not make efforts to break the yoke of a Tyrant 
who, being able to make of the hearts of men what 
He pleases, allows them to become perverted and 


Prejudices are but for a Time. 257 

hardened ; blinds them ; refuses them His grace, 
in order to have the satisfaction of punishing them 
eternally for having been hardened, blinded, and 
not having received the grace which He refused 
them? The theologians and the priests must feel 
themselves very sure of Heaven’s grace and of a 
happy future, in order not to detest a Master so 
capricious as the God whom they announce to us. 
A God who damns eternally must be the most odi- 
ous Being that the human mind could imagine. 

CLXXXIX. — PREJUDICES ARE BUT FOR A TIME, 
AND NO POWER IS DURABLE EXCEPT IT IS 
BASED UPON TRUTH, REASON, AND EQUITY. 

No man on earth is truly interested in sustaining 
error ; sooner or later it is compelled to surrender 
to truth. General interest tends to the enlighten- 
ment of mortals ; even the passions sometimes con- 
tribute to the breaking of some of the chains of 
prejudice. Have not the passions of some sover- 
eigns destroyed, within the past two centuries in 
some countries of Europe, the tyrannical power 
which a haughty Pontiff formerly exercised over all 
the princes of his sect ? Politics, becoming more 
enlightened, has despoiled the clergy of an im- 
mense amount of property which credulity had 
accumulated in their hands. Should not this mem- 
orable example make even the priests realize that 
prejudices are but for a time, and that truth alone 
is capable of assuring a substantial well-being? 

Have not the ministers of the Lord seen that in 
pampering the sovereigns, in forging Divine rights 


258 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

for them, and in delivering to them the people, 
bound hand and foot, they were making tyrants of 
them ? Have they not reason to fear that these 
gigantic idols, whom they have raised to the skies, 
will crush them also some day? Do not a thou- 
sand examples prove that they ought to fear that 
these unchained lions, after having devoured na- 
tions, will in turn devour them ? 

We will respect the priests when they become 
citizens. Let them make use, if they can, of 
Heaven’s authority to create fear in those princes 
who incessantly desolate the earth ; let them de- 
prive them of the right of being unjust ; let them 
recognize that no subject of a State enjoys living 
under tyranny ; let them make the sovereigns feel 
that they themselves are not interested in exercis- 
ing a power which, rendering them odious, injures 
their own safety, their own power, their own grand- 
eur ; finally, let the priests and the undeceived 
kings recognize that no power is safe that is not 
based upon truth, reason, and equity. 

CXC.— HOW MUCH POWER AND CONSIDERATION 
THE MINISTERS OF THE GODS WOULD HAVE, 
IF THEY BECAME THE APOSTLES OF REASON 
AND THE DEFENDERS OF LIBERTY ! 

The ministers of the Gods, in warring against 
human reason, which they ought to develop, act 
against their own interest. What would be their 
power, their consideration, their empire over the 
wisest men ; what would be the gratitude of the 
people toward them if, instead of occupying them- 


Philosophy a Good Substitute for Religion. 259 

selves with their vain quarrels, they had applied 
themselves to the useful sciences ; if they had 
sought the true principles of physics, of govern- 
ment, and of morals. Who would dare reproach 
the opulence and credit of a corporation which, 
consecrating its leisure and its authority to the 
public good, should use the one for studying and 
meditating, and the other for enlightening equally 
the minds of the sovereigns and the subjects ? 

Priests ! lay aside your idle fancies, your unintel- 
ligible dogmas, your despicable quarrels ; banish to 
imaginary regions these phantoms, which could be 
of use to you only in the infancy of nations ; take 
the tone of reason, instead of sounding the tocsin 
of persecution against your adversaries ; instead of 
entertaining the people with foolish disputes, of 
preaching useless and fanatical virtues, preach to 
them humane and social morality ; preach to them 
virtues which are really useful to the world ; be- 
come the apostles of reason, the lights of the na- 
tions, the defenders of liberty, reformers of abuses, 
the friends of truth, and we will bless you, we will 
honor you, we will love you, and you will be sure 
of holding an eternal empire over the hearts of 
your fellow-beings. 

CXCI. — WHAT A HAPPY AND GREAT REVOLUTION 
WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE, IF 
PHILOSOPHY WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR RELIG- 
ION ! 

Philosophers, in all ages, have taken the part 
that seemed destined for the ministers of religion. 


260 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

The hatred of the latter for philosophy was never 
more than professional jealousy. All men accus- 
tomed to think, instead of seeking to injure each 
other, should unite their efforts in combating er- 
rors, in seeking truth, and especially in dispelling 
the prejudices from which the sovereigns and sub- 
jects suffer alike, and whose upholders themselves 
finish, sooner or later, by becoming the victims. 

In the hands of an enlightened government the 
priests would become the most useful of citizens. 
Could men with rich stipends from the State, and 
relieved of the care of providing for their own sub- 
sistence, do anything better than to instruct them- 
selves in order to be able to instruct others ? Would 
not their minds be better satisfied in discovering 
truth than in wandering in the labyrinths of dark- 
ness ? Would it be any more difficult to unravel 
the principles of man’s morals, than the imaginary 
principles of Divine and theological morals ? Would 
ordinary men have as much trouble in understand- 
ing the simple notions of their duties, as in charg- 
ing their memories with mysteries, unintelligible 
words, and obscure definitions which are impossi- 
ble for them to understand ? How much time and 
trouble is lost in trying to teach men things which 
are of no use to them. What resources for the 
public benefit, for encouraging the progress of the 
sciences and the advancement of knowledge, for 
the education of youth, are presented to well- 
meaning sovereigns through so many monasteries, 
which, in a great number of countries devour the 
people’s substance without an equivalent. But 


Retraction at Death Proves Nothing. 261 

superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems 
to have formed but useless beings. What advan- 
tage could not be drawn from a multitude of ceno- 
bites of both sexes whom we see in so many coun- 
tries, and who are so well paid to do nothing. In- 
stead of occupying them with sterile contempla- 
tions, with mechanical prayers, with monotonous 
practices ; instead of burdening them with fasts 
and austerities, let there be excited among them a 
salutary emulation that would inspire them to seek 
the means of serving usefully the world, which their 
fatal vows oblige them to renounce. Instead of 
filling the youthful minds of their pupils with fa- 
bles, dogmas, and puerilities, why not invite or 
oblige the priests to teach them true things, and so 
make of them citizens useful to their country ? 
The way in which men are brought up makes them 
useful but to the clergy, who blind them, and to the 
tyrants, who plunder them. 

CXCII.— THE RETRACTION OF AN UNBELIEVER AT 
THE HOUR OF DEATH, PROVES NOTHING 
AGAINST INCREDULITY. 

The adherents of credulity often accuse the 
unbelievers of bad faith because they sometimes 
waver in their principles, changing opinions during 
sickness, and retracting them at the hour of death. 
When the body is diseased, the faculty of reason- 
ing is generally disturbed also. The infirm and 
decrepit man, in approaching his end, sometimes 
perceives himself that reason is leaving him, he 
feels that prejudice returns. There are diseases 


262 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

which have a tendency to lessen courage, to make 
pusillanimous, and to enfeeble the brain ; there are 
others which, in destroying the body, do not affect 
the reason. However, an unbeliever who retracts 
in sickness, is not more rare or more extraordinary 
than a devotionist who permits himself, while in 
health, to neglect the duties that his religion pre- 
scribes for him in the most formal manner. 

Cleomenes, King of Sparta, having shown little 
respect for the Gods during his reign, became su- 
perstitious in his last days ; with the view of inter- 
esting Heaven in his favor, he called around him a 
multitude of sacrificing priests. One of his friends 
expressing his surprise, Cleomenes said : 

“ What are you astonished at ? I am no longer 
what I was, and not being the same, I can not 
think in the same way.” 

The ministers of religion in their daily conduct, 
often belie the rigorous principles which they teach 
to others, so that the unbelievers in their turn think 
they have a right to accuse them of bad faith. If 
some unbelievers contradict, in sight of death or dur- 
ing sickness, the opinions which they entertained in 
health, do not the priests in health belie opinions 
of the religion which they hold ? Do we see a great 
multitude of humble, generous prelates devoid of 
ambition, enemies of pomp and grandeur, the 
friends of poverty? In short, do we see the con- 
duct of many Christian priests corresponding with 
the austere morality of Christ, their God and theii 
model ? 


Religion not Necessary for the Masses . 263 


CXCIII. — IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ATHEISM SUNDERS 
ALL THE TIES OF SOCIETY. 

Atheism, we are told, breaks all social ties. 
Without belief in God, what becomes of the sa- 
credness of the oath? How can we bind an athe- 
ist who can not seriously attest the Deity ? But 
does the oath place us under stronger obligations 
to the engagements which we make ? Whoever 
dares to lie, will he not dare to perjure himself? 
He who is base enough to violate his word, or un- 
just enough to break his promises in contempt of 
the esteem of men, will not be more faithful for 
having taken all the Gods as witnesses to his oaths. 
Those who rank themselves above the judgments 
of men, will soon put themselves above the judg- 
ments of God. Are not princes, of all mortals, the 
most prompt in taking oaths, and the most prompt 
in violating them ? 

CXCIV. — REFUTATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT 
RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR THE MASSES. 

Religion, they tell us, is necessary for the masses ; 
that though enlightened persons may not need re- 
straint upon their opinions, it is necessary at least 
for the common people, in whom education has not 
developed reason. Is it true, then, that religion is 
a restraint for the people ? Do we see that this re- 
ligion prevents them from intemperance, drunken- 
ness, brutality, violence, frauds, and all kinds of 
excesses ? Could a people who had no idea of the 
Deity, conduct itself in a more detestable manner 


264 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

than many believing people in whom we see dis- 
solute habits, and the vices most unworthy of ra 
tional beings ? Do we not see the artisan or the 
man of the people go from his church and plunge 
headlong into his usual excesses, persuading him- 
self all the while that his periodical homage to 
God gives him the right to follow without remorse 
his vicious practices and habitual inclinations? If 
the people are gross and ignorant, is not their stu- 
pidity due to the negligence of the princes who do 
not attend to the public education, or who oppose 
the instruction of their subjects? Finally, is not 
the irrationality of the people plainly the work of 
the priests, who, instead of interesting them in a 
rational morality, do nothing but entertain them 
with fables, phantoms, intrigues, observances, idle 
fancies, and false virtues, upon which they claim 
that everything depends? 

Religion is, for the people, but a vain attendance 
upon ceremonies, to which they cling from habit, 
which amuses their eyes, which enlivens tempora- 
rily their sleepy minds, without influencing the 
conduct, and without correcting their morals. By 
the confession even of the ministers at the altars, 
nothing is more rare than the interior and spiritual 
religion, which is alone capable of regulating the 
life of man, and of triumphing over his inclinations. 
In good faith, among the most numerous and the 
most devotional people, are there many capable 
of understanding the principles of their religious 
system, and who find them of sufficient strength to 
stifle their perverse inclinations ? 


The Multitude do not Reason . 265 

Many people will tell us that it is better to have 
some kind of a restraint than none at all. They 
will pretend that if religion does not control the 
great mass, it serves at least to restrain some indi- 
viduals, who, without it, would abandon themselves 
to crime without remorse. No doubt it is necessa- 
ry for men to have a restraint ; but they do not 
need an imaginary one ; they need true and visible 
restraints; they need real fears, which are much 
better to restrain them than panic terrors and idle 
fancies. Religion frightens but a few pusillani- 
mous minds, whose weakness of character already 
renders them little to be dreaded by their fellow- 
citizens. An equitable government, severe laws, a 
sound morality, will apply equally to everybody ; 
every one would be forced to believe in it, and 
would feel the danger of not conforming to it. 

CXCV. — EVERY RATIONAL SYSTEM IS NOT MADE 
FOR THE MULTITUDE. 

We may be asked if atheism can suit the multi- 
tude ? I reply, that every system which demands 
discussion is not for the multitude. What use is 
there, then, in preaching atheism ? It can at least 
make those who reason, feel that nothing is more 
extravagant than to make ourselves uneasy, and 
nothing more unjust than to cause anxiety to oth- 
ers on account of conjectures, destitute of all foun- 
dation. As to the common man, who never reasons, 
the arguments of an atheist are no better suited to 
him than a philosopher's hypothesis, an astrono- 
mer s observations, a chemist's experiments, a ge- 


266 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

ometer’s calculations, a physician’s examinations, 
an architect’s designs, or a lawyer’s pleadings, who 
all labor for the people without their knowledge. 

The metaphysical arguments of theology, and 
the religious disputes which have occupied for so 
long many profound visionists, are they made any 
more for the common man than the arguments of 
an atheist ? More than this, the principles of athe- 
ism, founded upon common sense, are they not 
more intelligible than those of a theology which 
we see bristling with insolvable difficulties, even 
for the most active minds ? The people in every 
country have a religion which they do not under- 
stand, which they do not examine, and which they 
follow but by routine ; their priests alone occupy 
themselves with the theology which is too sublime 
for them. If, by accident, the people should lose 
this unknown theology, they could console them 
selves for the loss of a thing which is not only en- 
tirely useless, but which produces among them very 
dangerous ebullitions. 

It would be very foolish to write for the common 
man or to attempt to cure his prejudices all at once. 
We write but for those who read and reason ; the 
people read but little, and reason less. Sensible 
and peaceable people enlighten themselves; their 
light spreads itself gradually, and in time reaches 
the people. On the other hand, those who deceive 
men, do they not often take the trouble themselves 
of undeceiving them ? 


Futility and Danger of Theology . 267 


CXCVI. — FUTILITY AND DANGER OF THEOLOGY. 

WISE COUNSELS TO PRINCES. 

If theology is a branch of commerce useful to 
theologians, it has been demonstrated to be super- 
fluous and injurious to the rest of society. The 
interests of men will succeed in opening their eyes 
sooner or later. The sovereigns and the people 
will some day discover the indifference and the 
contempt that a futile science deserves which serves 
but to trouble men without making them better. 
They will feel the uselessness of many expensive 
practices, which do not at all contribute to public 
welfare ; they will blush at many pitiful quarrels, 
which will cease to disturb the tranquillity of the 
States as soon as they cease to attach any impor- 
tance to them. 

Princes ! instead of taking part in the senseless 
contentions of your priests, instead of espousing 
foolishly their impertinent quarrels, instead of 
striving to bring all your subjects to uniform opin- 
ions, occupy yourselves with their happiness in this 
world, and do not trouble yourselves about the 
fate which awaits them in another. Govern them 
justly, give them good laws, respect their liberty 
and their property, superintend their education, 
encourage them in their labors, reward their tal- 
ents and their virtues, repress their licentiousness, 
and do not trouble yourselves upon what they think 
about objects useless to them and to you. Then 
you will no longer need fictions to make yourselves 
obeyed ; you will become the only guides of your 


268 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

subjects ; their ideas will be uniform about the feel* 
ings of love and respect which will be your due. 
Theological fables are useful but to tyrants, who 
do not understand the art of ruling over reasonable 
beings. 

CXCVII. — FATAL EFFECTS OF RELIGION UPON THE 
PEOPLE AND THE PRINCES. 

Does it require the efforts of genius to compre- 
hend that what is beyond man, is not made for men ; 
that what is supernatural, is not made for natural 
beings ; that impenetrable mysteries are not made 
for limited minds? If theologians are foolish 
enough to dispute about subjects which they ac- 
knowledge to be unintelligible to themselves, should 
society take a part in their foolish quarrels ? Must 
human blood flow in order to give value to the 
conjectures of a few obstinate visionists ? If it is 
very difficult to cure the theologians of their mania 
and the people of their prejudices, it is at least 
very easy to prevent the extravagances of the one 
and the folly of the other from producing perni- 
cious effects. Let each one be allowed to think as 
he chooses, but let him not be allowed to annoy 
others for their mode of thinking. If the chiefs of 
nations were more just and more sensible, theolog- 
ical opinions would not disturb the public tranquil- 
lity any more than the disputes of philosophers, 
physicians, grammarians, and of critics. It is the 
tyranny of princes which makes theological quar- 
rels have serious consequences. When kings shall 


Fatal Effects of Religion . 269 

cease to meddle with theology, theological quarrels 
will no longer be a thing to fear. 

Those who boast so much upon the importance 
and usefulness of religion, ought to show us its 
beneficial results, and the advantages that the dis- 
putes and abstract speculations of theology can 
bring to porters, to artisans, to farmers, to fish- 
mongers, to women, and to so many depraved serv- 
ants, with whom the large cities are filled. People 
of this kind are all religious, they have implicit 
faith ; their priests believe for them ; they accept 
a faith unknown to their guides; they listen assidu- 
ously to sermons ; they assist regularly in ceremo- 
nies ; they think it a great crime to transgress the 
ordinances to which from childhood they have been 
taught to conform. What good to morality results 
from all this ? None whatever ; they have no idea 
of morality, and you see them indulge in all kinds 
of rogueries, frauds, rapine, and excesses which the 
law does not punish. The masses, in truth, have 
no idea of religion ; what is called religion, is but a 
blind attachment to unknown opinions and myste- 
rious dealings. In fact, to deprive the people of re- 
ligion, is depriving them of nothing. If we should 
succeed in destroying their prejudices, we would 
but diminish or annihilate the dangerous confi- 
dence which they have in self-interested guides, 
and teach them to beware of those who, under the 
pretext of religion, very often lead them into fatal 
excesses. 


270 Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 

CXCVIII. — CONTINUATION. 

Under pretext of instructing and enlightening 
men, religion really holds them in ignorance, and 
deprives them even of the desire of understanding 
the objects which interest them the most. There 
exists for the people no other rule of conduct than 
that which their priests indicate to them. Religion 
takes the place of everything ; but being in dark- 
ness itself, it has a greater tendency to misguide 
mortals, than to guide them in the way of science 
and happiness. Philosophy, morality, legislation, 
and politics are to them enigmas. Man, blinded 
by religious prejudices, finds it impossible to under- 
stand his own nature, to cultivate his reason, to 
make experiments ; he fears truth as soon as it 
does not agree with his opinions. Everything 
tends to render the people devout, but all is op- 
posed to their being humane, reasonable, and vir- 
tuous. Religion seems to have for its object only 
to blunt the feeling and to dull the intelligence of 
men. 

The war which always existed between the priests 
and the best minds of all ages, comes from this, 
that the wise men perceived the fetters which su- 
perstition wished to place upon the human mind, 
which it fain would keep in eternal infancy, that it 
might be occupied with fables, burdened with ter- 
rors, and frightened by phantoms which would pre- 
vent it from progressing. Incapable of perfecting 
itself, theology opposed insurmountable barriers to 
the progress of true knowledge ; it seemed to be 


Religion Founded upon Ignorance. 271 

occupied but with the care to keep the nations 
and their chiefs in the most profound ignorance of 
their true interests, of their relations, of their duties, 
of the real motives which can lead them to pros- 
perity ; it does but obscure morality ; renders its 
principles arbitrary, subjects it to the caprices of 
the Gods, or of their ministers ; it converts the art 
of governing men into a mysterious tyranny which 
becomes the scourge of nations ; it changes the 
princes into unjust and licentious despots, and the 
people into ignorant slaves, who corrupt themselves 
in order to obtain the favor of their masters. 

CXCIX.— HISTORY TEACHES US THAT ALL RELIG- 
IONS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE AID OF 
IGNORANCE, AND BY MEN WHO HAD THE 
EFFRONTERY TO STYLE THEMSELVES THE 
ENVOYS OF DIVINITY. 

If we take the trouble to follow the history of 
the human mind, we will discover that theology 
took care not to extend its limits. It began by 
repeating fables, which it claimed to be sacred 
truths ; it gave birth to poesy, which filled the 
people's imagination with puerile fictions ; it en- 
tertained them but with its Gods and their incredi- 
ble feats ; in a word, religion always treated men 
like children, whom they put to sleep with tales 
that their ministers would like still to pass as in- 
contestable truths. If the ministers of the Gods 
sometimes made useful discoveries, they always 
took care to hide them in enigmas and to envelope 
them in shadows of mystery. The Pythagorases 


272 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier 

and the Platos, in order to acquire some futile at- 
tainments, were obliged to crawl to the feet of the 
priests, to become initiated into their mysteries, to 
submit to the tests which they desired to impose 
upon them ; it is at this cost that they were per- 
mitted to draw from the fountain-head their ex- 
alted ideas, so seducing still to all those who ad- 
mire what is unintelligible. It was among Egyp- 
tian, Indian, Chaldean priests ; it was in the schools 
of these dreamers, interested by profession in de- 
throning human reason, that philosophy was obliged 
to borrow its first rudiments. Obscure or false in 
its principles, mingled with fictions and fables, 
solely made to seduce imagination, this philosophy 
progressed but waveringly, and instead of enlight- 
ening the mind, it blinded it, and turned it away 
from useful objects. The theological speculations 
and mystical reveries of the ancients have, even in 
our days, the making of the law in a great part of 
the philosophical world. Adopted by modern the- 
ology, we can scarcely deviate from them without 
heresy ; they entertain us with aerial beings, with 
spirits, angels, demons, genii, and other phantoms, 
which are the object of the meditations of our most 
profound thinkers, and which serve as a basis to 
metaphysics, an abstract and futile science, upon 
which the greatest geniuses have vainly exercised 
themselves for thousands of years. Thus hypoth- 
eses, invented by a few visionists of Memphis and 
of Babylon, continue to be the basis of a science 
revered for the obscurity which makes it pass as 
marvelous and Divine. The first legislators of na- 


Modern Religion Borrowed from Ancient. 273 

tions were priests ; the first mythologists and poets 
were priests ; the first philosophers were priests ; 
the first physicians were priests. In their hands 
science became a sacred thing, prohibited to the 
profane ; they spoke only by allegories, emblems, 
enigmas, and ambiguous oracles — means well-suited 
to excite curiosity, to put to work the imagination, 
and especially to inspire in the ignorant man a holy 
respect for those whom he believed instructed by 
Heaven, capable of reading the destinies of earth, 
and who boldly pretended to be the organs of Di- 
vinity. 

CC. — ALL RELIGIONS, ANCIENT AND MODERN, 
HAVE MUTUALLY BORROWED THEIR AB- 
STRACT REVERIES AND THEIR RIDICULOUS 
PRACTICES. 

The religions of these ancient priests have dis- 
appeared, or, rather, they have changed their form. 
Although our modern theologians regard the an- 
cient priests as impostors, they have taken care to 
gather up the scattered fragments of their relig- 
ious systems, the whole of which does not exist 
any longer for us ; we will find in our modern re- 
ligions, not only the metaphysical dogmas which 
theology has but dressed in another form, but we 
still find remarkable remains of their superstitious 
practices, of their theurgy, of their magic, of their 
enchantments. Christians are still commanded to 
regard with respect the monuments of the legisla- 
tors, the priests, and the prophets of the Hebrew 
religion, which, according to appearances, has bor- 


274 Common Sense, by Jean Me slier. 

rowed from Egypt the fantastic notions with which 
we see it filled. Thus the extravagances invented 
by frauds or idolatrous visionists, are still regarded 
as sacred opinions by the Christians ! 

If we but look at history, we see striking resem- 
blances in all religions. Everywhere on earth we 
find religious ideas periodically afflicting and rejoic- 
ing the people ; everywhere we see rites, practices 
often abominable, and formidable mysteries occu- 
pying the mind, and becoming objects of medita- 
tion. We see the different superstitions borrowing 
from each other their abstract reveries and their 
ceremonies. Religions are generally unformed rhap- 
sodies combined by new Doctors of Divinity, who, 
in composing them, have used the materials of their 
predecessors, reserving the right of adding or sub- 
tracting what suits or does not suit their present 
views. The religion of Egypt served evidently as 
a basis for the religion of Moses, who expunged 
from it the worship of idols. Moses was but an 
Egyptian schismatic, Christianity is but a reformed 
Judaism. Mohammedanism is composed of Ju- 
daism, of Christianity, and of the ancient religion 
of Arabia. 

CCI. — THEOLOGY HAS ALWAYS TURNED PHILOSO- 
PHY FROM ITS TRUE COURSE. 

From the most remote period theology alone 
regulated the march of philosophy. What aid has 
it lent it ? It changed it into an unintelligible 
jargon, which only had a tendency to render the 
clearest truth uncertain ; it converted the art of 


Theology Explains Nothing in Nature . 275 

\ lasoning into a science of words ; it threw the 
human mind into the aerial regions of metaphys- 
ics, where it unsuccessfully occupied itself in 
sounding useless and dangerous abysses. For 
physical and simple causes, this philosophy sub- 
stituted supernatural causes, or, rather, causes truly 
occult ; it explained difficult phenomena by agents 
more inconceivable than these phenomena ; it filled 
discourse with words void of sense, incapable of 
giving the reason of things, better suited to ob- 
scure than to enlighten, and which seem invented 
but to discourage man, to guard him against the 
powers of his own mind, to make him distrust the 
principles of reason and evidence, and to surround 
the truth with an insurmountable barrier. 

CCII. — THEOLOGY NEITHER EXPLAINS NOR EN- 
LIGHTENS ANYTHING IN THE WORLD OR IN 
NATURE. 

If we would believe the adherents of religion, 
nothing could be explicable in the world without 
it ; nature would be a continual enigma ; it would 
be impossible for man to comprehend himself. 
But, at the bottom, what does this religion ex- 
plain to us? The more we examine it, the more 
we find that theological notions are fit but to per- 
plex all our ideas ; they change all into mysteries ; 
they explain to us difficult things by impossible 
things. Is it, then, explaining things to attribute 
them to unknown agencies, to invisible powers, to 
immaterial causes? Is it really enlightening the 
human mind when, in its embarrassment, it is di- 


276 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

rected to the “ depths of the treasures of Divine 
Wisdom,” upon which they tell us it is in vain for 
us to turn our bold regards? Can the Divine Nat- 
ure, which we know nothing about, make us under- 
stand man’s nature, which we find so difficult to 
explain ? 

Ask a Christian philosopher what is the origin 
of the world. He will answer that God created 
the universe. What is God? We do not know 
anything about it. What is it to create? We 
have no idea of it ! What is the cause of pesti- 
lences, famines, wars, sterility, inundations, earth- 
quakes? It is God’s wrath. What remedies can 
prevent these calamities? Prayers, sacrifices, pro- 
cessions, offerings, ceremonies, are, we are told, the 
true means to disarm Celestial fury. But why is 
Heaven angry? Because men are wicked. Why 
are men wicked? Because their nature is corrupt. 
What is the cause of this corruption ? It is, a the- 
ologian of enlightened Europe will reply, because 
the first man was seduced by the first woman to 
eat of an apple which his God had forbidden him 
to touch. Who induced this woman to do such a 
folly ? The Devil. Who created the Devil ? God ! 
Why did God create this Devil destined to pervert 
the human race ? We know nothing about it ; it is 
a mystery hidden in the bosom of the Deity. 

Does the earth revolve around the sun ? Two 
centuries ago a devout philosopher would have re- 
plied that such a thought was blasphemy, because 
such a system could not agree with the Holy Book, 
which every Christian reveres as inspired by the 


Theology has Fettered Human Morals. 277 

Deity Himself. What is the opinion to-day about 
it? Notwithstanding Divine Inspiration, the Chris- 
tian philosophers finally concluded to rely upon 
evidence rather than upon the testimony of their 
inspired books. 

What is the hidden principle of the actions and 
of the motions of the human body ? It is the soul. 
What is a soul ? It is a spirit. What is a spirit ? 
It is a substance which has neither form, color, ex- 
pansion, nor parts. How can we conceive of such 
a substance ? How can it move a body ? We know 
nothing about it. Have brutes souls ? The Car- 
thusian assures you that they are machines. But 
do we not see them act, feel, and think in a manner 
which resembles that of men ? This is a pure illu- 
sion, you say. But why do you deprive the brutes 
of souls, which, without understanding it, you at- 
tribute to men ? It is that the souls of the brutes 
would embarrass our theologians, who, content 
with the power of frightening and damning the im- 
mortal souls of men, do not take the same interest 
in damning those of the brutes. Such are the 
puerile solutions which philosophy, always guided 
by the leading-strings of theology, was obliged to 
bring forth to explain the problems of the physical 
and moral world. 

CCIII. — HOW THEOLOGY HAS FETTERED HUMAN 
MORALS AND RETARDED THE PROGRESS OF 
ENLIGHTENMENT, OF REASON, AND OF TRUTH. 

How many subterfuges and mental gymnastics 
all the ancient and modern thinkers have employed, 


278 Common Sense , by Jean Meslie . 

in order to avoid falling out with the ministers of 
the Gods, who in all ages were the true tyrants of 
thought ! How Descartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, 
and many others have been compelled to invent 
hypotheses and evasions in order to reconcile their 
discoveries with the reveries and the blunders which 
religion had rendered sacred ! With what precau- 
tions have not the greatest philosophers guarded 
themselves even at the risk of being absurd, incon- 
sistent, and unintelligible whenever their ideas did 
not correspond with the principles of theology! 
Vigilant priests were always ready to extinguish 
systems which could not be made to tally with 
their interests. Theology in every age has been 
the bed of Procrustes upon which this brigand ex- 
tended his victims ; he cut off the limbs when they 
were too long, or stretched them by horses when 
they were shorter than the bed upon which he 
placed them. 

What sensible man who has a love for science, 
and is interested in the welfare of humanity, can 
reflect without sorrow and pain upon the loss of 
so many profound, laborious, and subtle heads, 
who, for many centuries, have foolishly exhausted 
themselves upon idle fancies that proved to be in- 
jurious to our race ? What light could have been 
thrown into the minds of many famous thinkers, if, 
instead of occupying themselves with a useless 
theology, and its impertinent disputes, they had 
turned their attention upon intelligible and truly im- 
portant objects. Half of thjs efforts that it cost the 
genius that was able to forge their religious opin- 


Theology has Fettered Human Morals . 279 

ions, half of the expense which their frivolous wor- 
ship cost the nations, would have sufficed to en- 
lighten them perfectly upon morality, politics, phi- 
losophy, medicine, agriculture, etc. Superstition 
nearly always absorbs the attention, the admira- 
tion, and the treasures of the people ; they have a 
very expensive religion ; but they have for their 
money, neither light, virtue, nor happiness. 

CCIV. — CONTINUATION. 

Some ancient and modern philosophers have had 
the courage to accept experience and reason as their 
guides, and to shake off the chains of superstition. 
Lucippe, Democritus, Epicurus, Straton, and some 
other Greeks, dared to tear away the thick veil of 
prejudice, and to deliver philosophy from theolog- 
ical fetters. But their systems, too simple, too 
sensible, and too stripped of wonders for the lovers 
of fancy, were obliged to surrender to the fabulous 
conjectures of Plato, Socrates, and Zeno. Among 
the moderns, Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, and others 
have followed the path of Epicurus, but their doc- 
trine found but few votaries in a world still too 
much infatuated with fables to listen to reason. 

In all ages one could not, without imminent dan- 
ger, lay aside the prejudices which opinion had 
rendered sacred. No one was permitted to make 
discoveries of any kind ; all that the most enlight- 
ened men could do was to speak and write with 
hidden meaning ; and often, by a cowardly com- 
plaisance, to shamefully ally falsehood with truth. 
A few of them had a double doctrine — one public 


280 Common Sense , by Jean Meslier. 

and the other secret. The key of this last having 
been lost, their true sentiments often became unin- 
telligible and, consequently, useless to us. How 
could modern philosophers who, being threatened 
with the most cruel persecution, w’ere called upon 
to renounce reason and to submit to faith — that is 
to say, to priestly authority — I say, how could 
men thus fettered give free flight to their genius, 
perfect reason, or hasten human progress ? It was 
but in fear and trembling that the greatest men 
obtained glimpses of truth; they rarely had the 
courage to announce it ; those who dared to do it 
have generally been punished for their temerity. 
Thanks to religion, it was never permitted to think 
aloud or to combat the prejudices of which man is 
everywhere the victim or the dupe. 

CCV. — WE COULD NOT REPEAT TOO OFTEN HOW 
EXTRAVAGANT AND FATAL RELIGION IS. 

Every man who has the boldness to announce 
truths to the world, is sure to receive the hatred of 
the priests ; the latter loudly call upon the powers 
that be, for assistance ; they need the assistance of 
kings to sustain their arguments and their Gods. 
These clamors show the weakness of their cause. 

“ They are in embarrassment when they cry for 
helpT 

It is not permitted to err in the matter of re- 
ligion ; on every other subject we can be deceived 
with impunity ; we pity those who go astray, and 
we have some liking for the persons who discover 


Religion is Pandora's Box. 


281 


truths neir to us. But as soon as theology sup- 
poses itself concerned, be it in errors or discover- 
ies, a holy zeal is kindled ; the sovereigns extermi- 
nate ; the people fly into frenzy; and the nations are 
all stirred up without knowing why. Is there any- 
thing more afflicting than to see public and indi- 
vidual welfare depend upon a futile science, which 
is void of principles, which has no standing ground 
but imagination, and which presents to the mind 
but words void of sense ? What good is a religion 
which no one understands ; which continually tor- 
ments those who trouble themselves about it; 
which is incapable of rendering men better ; and 
which often gives them the credit of being unjust 
and wicked ? Is there a more deplorable folly, and 
one that ought more to be abated, than that which, 
far from doing any good to the human race, does 
but blind it, cause transports, and render it miser- 
able, depriving it of truth, which alone can soften 
the rigor of fate ? 

CCVI.— RELIGION IS PANDORA’S BOX, AND THIS 
FATAL BOX IS OPEN. 

Religion has in every age kept the human mind 
in darkness and held it in ignorance of its true re- 
lations, of its real duties and its true interests. It 
is but in removing its clouds and phantoms that we 
may find the sources of truth, reason, morality, and 
the actual motives which inspire virtue. This re- 
ligion puts us on the wrong track for the causes of 
our evils, and the natural remedies which we can 


282 


Common Sense , by Jean Me slier. 


apply. Far from curing them, it can but multiply 
them and render them more durable. Let us, then, 
say, with the celebrated Lord Bolingbroke, in his 
posthumous works : “ Theology is the Box of Pan- 
dora ; and if it is impossible to close it, it is at least 
useful to give warning that this fatal box is open.” 


I believe, my dear friends, that I have given you a sufficient 
preventative against all these follies. Your reason will do 
more than my discourses, and I sincerely wish that we had 
only to complain of being deceived ! But human blood has 
flowed since the time of Constantine for the establishment of 
these horrible impositions. The Roman, the Greek, and the 
Protestant churches by vain, ambitious, and hypocritical dis- 
putes have ravaged Europe, Asia, and Africa. Add to these 
men, whom these quarrels murdered, the multitudes of monks 
and of nuns, who became sterile by their profession, and you 
will perceive that the Christian religion has destroyed half of 
the human race. 

I conclude with the desire that we may return to Nature, 
whose declared enemy the Christian religion is, and which 
necessarily instructs us to do unto others as we would wish 
them to do unto us. Then the universe will be composed of 
good citizens, just fathers, obedient children, tender friends. 
Nature has given us this Religion, in giving us Reason. May 
fanaticism pervert it no more ! I die filled with these desires 
more than with hope. 

Etrehgny, March 15, 173a. 


JOHN MESLIER. 


ABSTRACT 


OF THE 

TESTAMENT OF JOHN MESLIER, 

By VOLTAIRE ; 

OR, 

SENTIMENTS OF THE CURATE OF 

ETREPIGNY AND OF BUT, 

ADDRESSED TO HIS PARISHIONERS. 


I. — OF RELIGIONS. 

As there is no one religious denomination which 
does not pretend to be truly founded upon the 
authority of God, and entirely exempt from all the 
errors and impositions which are found in the oth- 
ers, it is for those who purpose to establish the 
truth of the faith of their sect, to show, by clear 
and convincing proofs, that it is of Divine origin ; 
as this is lacking, we must conclude that it is but 
of human invention, and full of errors and decep- 
tions ; for it is incredible that an Omnipotent and 
Infinitely good God would have desired to give 
laws and ordinances to men, and not have wished 
them to bear better authenticated marks of truth, 
than those of the numerous impostors. Moreover, 
there is not one of our Christ-worshipers, of what- 
ever sect he may be, who can make us see, by con- 
vincing proofs, that his religion is exclusively of 
Divine origin ; and for want of such proof they 

(283) 


284 


Abstract of the 


have been for many centuries contesting this sub- 
ject among themselves, even to persecuting each 
other by fire and sword to maintain their opinions ; 
there is, however, not one sect of them all which 
could convince and persuade the others by such 
witnesses of truth ; this certainly would not be, if 
they had, on one side or the other, convincing 
proofs of Divine origin. For, as no one of any 
religious sect, enlightened and of good faith, pre- 
tends to hold and to favor error and falsehood ; 
and as, on the contrary, each, on his side, pretends 
to sustain truth, the true means of banishing all 
errors, and of uniting all men in peace in the same 
sentiments and in the same form of religion, would 
be to produce convincing proofs and testimonies of 
the truth ; and thus show that such religion is of 
Divine origin, and not any of the others ; then 
each one would accept this truth ; and no person 
would dare to question these testimonies, or sus- 
tain the side of error and imposition, lest he should 
be, at the same time, confounded by contrary 
proofs : but, as these proofs are not found in any 
religion, it gives to impostors occasion to invent 
and boldly sustain all kinds of falsehoods. 

Here are still other proofs, which will not be 
less evident, of the falsity of human religions, and 
especially of the falsity of our own. Every religion 
which relies upon mysteries as its foundation, and 
which takes, as a rule of its doctrine and its mor- 
als, a principle of errors, and which is at the same 
time a source of trouble and eternal divisions 
among men, can not be a true religion, nor a Di- 


Testament of John Meslier. 


285 


vine Institution. Now, human religions, especially 
the Catholic, establish as the basis of their doctrine 
and of their morals, a principle of errors ; then, it 
follows that these religions can not be true, or of 
Divine origin. I do not see that we can deny the 
first proposition of this argument ; it is too clear 
and too evident to admit of a doubt. I pass to the 
proof of the second proposition, which is, that the 
Christian religion takes for the rule of its doctrine 
and its morals what they call faith, a blind trust, 
but yet firm, and secured by some laws or revela- 
tions of some Deity. We must necessarily suppose 
that it is thus, because it is this belief in some 
Deity and in some Divine Revelations, which gives 
all the credit and all the authority that it has in 
the world, and without which we could make no 
use of what it prescribes. This is why there is no 
religion which does not expressly recommend its 
votaries to be firm in their faith.* This is the rea- 
son that all Christians accept as a maxim, that 
faith is the commencement and the basis of salvation , 
that it is the root of all justice and of all sanctifi- 
cation, as it is expressed at the Council of Trent. — 
Sess. 6, Ch. VIII. 

Now it is evident that a blind faith in all which 
is proposed in the name and authority of God, is a 
principle of errors and falsehoods. As a proof, we 
see that there is no impostor in the matter of re- 
ligion, who does not pretend to be clothed with 
the name and the authority of God, and who does 


♦ “ Estate fortes in fide ! ” 


286 


Abstract of the 


not claim to be especially inspired and sent by 
God. Not only is this faith and blind belief which 
they accept as a basis of their doctrine, a principle 
of errors, etc., but it is also a source of trouble and 
division among men for the maintenance of their 
religion. There is no cruelty which they do not 
practice upon each other under this specious pre- 
text. 

Now then, it is not credible that an Almighty, 
All-Kind, and All-Wise God desired to use such 
means or such a deceitful way to inform men of 
His wishes ; for this would be manifestly desiring 
to lead them into error and to lay snares in 
their way, in order to make them accept the side 
of falsehood. It is impossible to believe that a 
God who loved unity and peace, the welfare and 
the happiness of men, would ever have established 
as the basis of His religion, such a fatal source of 
trouble and of eternal divisions among them. Such 
religions can not be true, neither could they have 
been instituted by God. But I see that our Christ- 
worshipers will not fail to have recourse to their 
pretended motives for credulity, and that they will 
say, that although their faith and belief may be 
blind in one sense, they are nevertheless supported 
by such clear and convincing testimonies of truth, 
that it would be not only imprudence, but temerity 
and folly not to surrender one’s self. They generally 
reduce these pretended motives to three or four 
leading features. The first, they draw from the 
pretended holiness of their religion, which con- 
demns vice, and which recommends the practice 


Testament of John Meslier . 287 

of virtue. Its doctrine is so pure, so simple, ac- 
cording to what they say, that it is evident it could 
spring but from the sanctity of an infinitely good 
and wise God. 

The second motive for credulity, they draw from 
the innocence and the holiness of life in those who 
embraced it with love, and defended it by suffering 
death and the most cruel torments, rather than for- 
sake it : it not being credible that such great per- 
sonages would allow themselves to be deceived in 
their belief, that they would renounce all the ad- 
vantages of life, and expose themselves to such 
cruel torments and persecutions, in order to main- 
tain errors and impositions. Their third motive 
for credulity, they draw from the oracles and 
prophecies which have so long been rendered in 
their favor, and which they pretend have been ac- 
complished in a manner which permits no doubt. 
Finally, their fourth motive for credulity, which is 
the most important of all, is drawn from the grand- 
eur and the multitude of the miracles performed, 
in all ages, and in every place, in favor of their re- 
ligion. 

But it is easy to refute all these useless reason- 
ings and to show the falsity of all these evidences. 
For, firstly, the arguments which our Christ- 
worshipers draw from their pretended motives for 
credulity can serve to establish and confirm false- 
hood as well as truth ; for we see that there is no 
religion, no matter how false it may be, which does 
not pretend to have a sound and true doctrine, and 
which, in its way, does not condemn all vices and 


288 


Abstract of the 


recommend the practice of all virtues ; there is not 
one which has not had firm and zealous defenders 
who have suffered persecution in order to maintain 
their religion ; and, finally, there is none which 
does not pretend to have wonders and miracles 
that have been performed in their favor. The 
Mohammedans, the Indians, the heathen, as well 
as the Christians, claim miracles in their religions. 
If our Christ-worshipers make use of their mira- 
cles and their prophecies, they are found no less in 
the Pagan religions than in theirs. Thus the ad- 
vantage we might draw from all these motives for 
credulity, is found about the same in all sorts of 
religions. This being established, as the history 
and practice of all religions demonstrate, it evi- 
dently follows that all these pretended motives for 
credulity, upon which our Christ-worshipers place 
so much value, are found equally in all religions ; 
and, consequently, can not serve as reliable evi- 
dences of the truth of their religion more than of 
the truth of any other. The result is clear. 

Secondly. In order to give an idea of the resem- 
blance of the miracles of Paganism to those of 
Christianity, could we not say, for example, that 
there would be more reason to believe Philostratus 
in what he recites of the life of Apollonius than to 
believe all the evangelists in what they say of the 
miracles of Jesus Christ ; because we know, at least 
that Philostratus was a man of intelligence, elo- 
quence, and fluency ; that he was the secretary of 
the Empress Julia, wife of the Emperor Severus, 
and that he was requested by this empress to write 


Testament of John Meslier. 289 

the life and the wonderful acts of Apollonius ? It 
is evident that Apollonius rendered himself famous 
by great and extraordinary deeds, since an empress 
was sufficiently interested in them to desire a his- 
tory of his life. This is what can not be said of 
Jesus Christ, nor of those who have furnished us 
His biography, for they were but ignorant men of 
the common people, poor workmen, fishermen, who 
had not even the sense to relate consistently the 
facts which they speak of, and which they mutually 
contradict very often. In regard to the One whose 
life and actions they describe, if He had really per- 
formed the miracles attributed to Him, He would 
have rendered Himself notable by His beautiful 
acts ; every one would have admired Him, and 
there would be statues erected to Him as 
was done for the Gods; but instead of that, He 
was regarded as a man of no consequence, as a 
fanatic, etc. Josephus, the historian, after having 
spoken of the great miracles performed in favor of 
his nation and his religion, immediately dimin- 
ishes their credibility and renders it suspicious by 
saying that he leaves to each one the liberty of 
believing what he chooses; this evidently shows 
that he had not much faith in them. It also gives 
occasion to the more judicious to regard the histo- 
ries which speak of this kind of things as fabulous 
narrations.* All that can be said upon this subject 
shows us clearly that pretended miracles can be 

* See Montaigne, and the author of the " Apology for Great 
Men.’* 


290 Abstract of the 

invented to favor vice and falsehood as well as 
justice and truth. 

I prove it by the evidence of what even our 
Christ-worshipers call the Word of God, and by the 
evidence of the One they adore ; for their books, 
which they claim contain the Word of God, and 
Christ Himself, whom they adore as a God-made 
man, show us explicitly that there are not only false 
prophets — that is to say, impostors — who claim to 
be sent by God, and who speak in His name, but 
which show as explicitly that these false prophets 
can perform such great and prodigious miracles as 
shall deceive the very elect.* More than this, all 
these pretended performers of miracles wish us to 
put faith only in them, and not in those who belong 
to an opposite party. 

On one occasion one of these pretended prophets, 
named Sedecias, being contradicted by another, 
named Michea, the former struck the latter and said 
to him, pleasantly, “ By what way did the Spirit 
of God pass from me to you ? ” 

But how can these pretended miracles be the 
evidences of truth ? for it is clear that they were 
not performed. For it would be necessary to know : 
Firstly , If those who are said to be the first authors 
of these narrations truly are such. Secondly , If they 
were honest men, worthy of confidence, wise and 
enlightened ; and to know if they were not preju- 
diced in favor of those of whom they speak so fa- 
vorably. Thirdly, If they have examined all the 

* See Matthew, chapter xxiv., verses 5, 21-27. 


Testament of John Meslier. 


291 


circumstances of the facts which they relate ; if 
they know them well ; and if they make a faithful 
report of them. Fourthly , If the books or the an- 
cient histories which relate all these great miracles 
have not been falsified and changed in course of 
time, as many others have been ? 

If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated 
historians, in regard to Moses and his nation, we 
shall see that they are considered as a horde of 
thieves and bandits. Magic and astrology were in 
those days the only fashionable sciences; and as 
Moses was, it is said, instructed in the wisdom of 
the Egyptians, it was not difficult for him to inspire 
veneration and attachment for himself in the rustic 
and ignorant children of Jacob, and to induce them 
to accept, in their misery, the discipline he wished 
to give them. That is very different from what the 
Jews and our Christ-worshipers wish to make us 
believe. By what certain rule can we know that we 
should put faith in these rather than in the others? 
There is no sound reason for it. There is as little 
of certainty and even of probability in the miracles 
of the New Testament as in those of the Old. 

It will serve no purpose to say that the histories 
which relate the facts contained in the Gospels 
have been regarded as true and sacred ; that they 
have always been faithfully preserved without any 
alteration of the truths which they contain ; since 
this is perhaps the very reason why they should be 
the more suspected, having been corrupted by those 
who drew profit from them, or who feared that they 
were not sufficiently favorable to them. 


292 


Abstract of the 


Generally, authors who transcribe this kind of 
histories, take the right to enlarge or to retrench 
all they please, in order to serve their own inter- 
ests. This is what even our Christ-worshipers can 
not deny ; for, without mentioning several other 
important personages who recognized the addi- 
tions, the retrenchments, and the falsifications 
which have been made at different times in their 
Holy Scriptures, their saint Jerome, a famous 
philosopher among them, formally said in several 
passages of his “ Prologues,’* that they had been 
corrupted and falsified ; being, even in his day, in 
the hands of all kinds of persons, who added and 
suppressed whatever they pleased ; so, “ Thus there 
were,” said he, “ as many different models as differ- 
ent copies of the Gospels.” 

In regard to the books of the Old Testament, 
Esdras, a priest of the law, testifies himself to hav- 
ing corrected and completed wholly the pretended 
sacred books of his law, which had partly been lost 
and partly corrupted. He divided them into twen- 
ty-two books, according to the number of the He- 
braic letters, and wrote several other books, whose 
doctrine was to be revealed to the learned men 
alone. If these books have been partly lost and 
partly corrupted, as Esdras and St. Jerome testify 
in so many passages, there is then no certainty in 
regard to what they contain ; and as for Esdras 
saying he had corrected and compiled them by the 
inspiration of God Himself there is no certainty of 
that, since there is no impostor who would not 
make the same claim. All the books of the law 
of Moses and of the prophets which could be found, 


Testament of John Meslier. 293 

were burned in the days of Antiochus. The Tal- 
mud, considered by the Jews as a holy and sacred 
book, and which contains all the Divine laws, with 
the sentences and notable sayings of the Rabbins, 
of their interpretation of the Divine and of the 
human laws, and a prodigious number of other 
secrets and mysteries in the Hebraic language, is 
considered by the Christians as a book made up of 
reveries, fables, impositions, and ungodliness. In 
the year 1559 they burned in Rome, according to 
the command of the inquisitors of the faith, twelve 
hundred of these Talmuds, which were found in a 
library in the city of Cremona. The Pharisees, a 
famous sect among the Jews, accepted but the five 
books of Moses, and rejected all the prophets. 
Among the Christians, Marcion and his votaries 
rejected the books of Moses and the prophets, and 
introduced other fashionable Scriptures. Carpoc- 
rates and his followers did the same, and rejected 
the whole of the Old Testament, and contended 
that Jesus Christ was but a man like all others. 
The Marcionites repudiated as bad, the whole of 
the Old Testament, and rejected the greater part 
of the four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. 
The Ebionites accepted but the Gospel of St. Mat- 
thew, rejecting the three others, and the Epistles 
of St. Paul. The Marcionites published a Gospel 
under the name of St. Matthias, in order to con- 
firm their doctrine. The apostles introduced other 
Scriptures in order to maintain their errors ; and to 
carry out this, they made use of certain Acts, which 
they attributed to St. Andrew and to St. Thomas. 

The Manicheans wrote a gospel of their own 


294 


Abstract of the 


style, and rejected the Scriptures of the prophets 
and the apostles. The Etzaites sold a certain book 
which they cla ; med to have come from Heaven ; 
they cut up the other Scriptures according to their 
fancy. Origen himself, with all his great mind, 
corrupted the Scriptures and forged changes in the 
allegories which did not suit him, thus corrupting 
the sense of the prophets and apostles, and even 
some of the principal points of doctrine. His 
books are now mutilated and falsified ; they are 
but fragments collected by others who have ap- 
peared since. The Ellogians attributed to the 
heretic Corinthus the Gospel and the Apocalypse 
of St. John; this is why they reject them. The 
heretics of our last centuries reject as apocryphal 
several books which the Roman Catholics consider 
as true and sacred — such as the books of Tobias, 
Judith, Esther, Baruch, the Song of the Three 
Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, 
and that of the Idol Bel, the Wisdom of Solomon, 
Ecclesiasticus, the first and second book of Macca- 
bees ; to which uncertain and doubtful books we 
could add several others that have been attributed 
to the other apostles ; as, for example, the Acts 
of St. Thomas, his Circuits, his Gospel, and his 
Apocalypse ; the Gospel of St. Bartholomew, 
that of St. Matthias, of St. Jacques, of St. Pe- 
ter and of the Apostles, as also the Deeds of 
St. Peter, his book on Preaching, and that of 
his Apocalypse; that of the Judgment, that of 
the Childhood of the Saviour, and several others 
of the same kind, which are all rejected as apoc- 


Testament of John Meslier. 295 

ryphal by the Roman Catholics, even by the Pope 
Gelasee, and by the S. S. F. F. of the Romish 
Communion. That which most confirms that there 
is no foundation of truth in regard to the authority 
given to these books, is that those who maintain 
their Divinity are compelled to acknowledge that 
they have no certainty as a basis, if their faith did 
not assure them and oblige them to believe it. 
Now, as faith is but a principle of error and impos- 
ture, how can faith, that is to say, a blind belief, 
render the books reliable which are themselves the 
foundation of this blind belief? What a pity and 
what insanity ! But let us see if these books have 
of themselves any feature of truth ; as, for exam- 
ple, of erudition, of wisdom, and of holiness, or 
some other perfections which are suited only to a 
God ; and if the miracles which are cited agree 
with what we ought to think of the grandeur, 
goodness, justice, and infinite wisdom of an Om- 
nipotent God. 

There is no erudition, no sublime thought, nor 
any production which surpasses the ordinary ca- 
pacities of the human mind. On the contrary, we 
shall see on one side fabulous tales similar to that of 
a woman formed of a man’s rib ; of the pretended 
terrestrial Paradise ; of a serpent which spoke, 
which reasoned, and which was more cunning than 
man ; of an ass which spoke, and reprimanded its 
master for ill-treating it ; of a universal deluge, and 
of an ark where animals of all kinds were inclosed ; 
of the confusion of languages and of the division 
of the nations, without speaking of numerous other 


296 


Abstract of the 


useless narrations upon low and frivolous subjects 
which important authors would scorn to relate. 
All these narrations appear to be fables, as much 
as those invented about the industry of Prome- 
theus, the box of Pandora, the war of the Giants 
against the Gods, and similar others which the 
poets have invented to amuse the men of their time. 

On the other hand we will see a mixture of laws 
and ordinances, or superstitious practices concern- 
ing sacrifices, the purifications of the old law, the 
senseless distinctions in regard to animals, of which 
it supposes some to be pure and others to be im- 
pure. These laws are no more respectable than 
those of the most idolatrous nations. We shall see 
but simple stories, true or false, of several kings, 
princes, or individuals, who lived right or wrong, 
or who performed noble or mean actions, with 
other low and frivolous things also related. 

From all this, it is evident that no great genius 
was required, nor Divine Revelations to produce 
these things. It would not be creditable to a God. 

Finally, we see in these books but the discourses, 
the conduct, and the actions of those renowned 
prophets who proclaimed themselves especially in- 
spired by God. We will see their way of acting and 
speaking, their dreams, their illusions, their reveries ; 
and it will be easy to judge whether they do not 
resemble visionaries and fanatics much more than 
wise and enlightened persons. 

There are, however, in a few of these books, sev- 
eral good teachings and beautiful maxims of morals, 
as in the Proverbs attributed to Solomon, in the book 


Testament of John Meslier. 297 

of Wisdom and of Ecclesiastes ; but this same Sol- 
omon, the wisest of their writers, is also the most 
incredulous ; he doubts even the immortality of the 
soul, and concludes his works by saying that there 
is nothing good but to enjoy in peace the fruits of 
one’s labor, and to live with those whom we love. 

How superior are the authors who are called pro- 
fane, such as Xenophon, Plato, Cicero, the Em- 
peror Antoninus, the Emperor Julian, Virgil, etc., 
to the books which we are told are inspired of 
God. I can truly say that the fables of ^Esop, for 
example, are certainly more ingenious and more 
instructive than all these rough and poor parables 
which are related in the Gospels. 

But what shows us that this kind of books is not 
of Divine Inspiration, is, that aside from the low 
order, coarseness of style, and the lack of system 
in the narrations of the different facts, which are 
very badly arranged, we do not see that the authors 
agree ; they contradict each other in several things ; 
they had not even sufficient enlightenment or nat- 
ural talents to write a history. 

Here are some examples of the contradictions 
which are found among them. The Evangelist 
Matthew claims that Jesus Christ descended from 
king David by his son Solomon through Joseph, 
reputed to be His father; and Luke claims that 
He is descended from the same David by his son 
Nathan through Joseph. 

Matthew says, in speaking of Jesus, that, it being 
reported in Jerusalem that a new king of the Jews 
was born, and that the wise men had come to adore 


298 


Abstract of the 


Him, the king Herod, fearing that this pretended 
new king would rob him of his crown some day, 
caused the murder of all the new-born children un- 
der two years, in all the neighborhood of Bethlehem, 
where he had been told that this new king was born ; 
and that Joseph and the mother of Jesus, having 
been warned in a dream by an angel, of this wick- 
ed intention, took flight immediately to Egypt, 
where they stayed until the death of Herod, which 
happened many years afterward. 

On the contrary, Luke asserts that Joseph and 
the mother of Jesus lived peaceably during six 
weeks in the place where their child Jesus was 
born ; that He was circumcised according to the 
law of the Jews, eight days after His birth; and 
when the time prescribed by the law for the purifi- 
cation of His mother had arrived, she and Joseph, 
her husband, carried Him to Jerusalem in order to 
present Him to God in His temple, and to offer at 
the same time a sacrifice which was ordained by 
God’s law ; after which they returned to Galilee, 
into their town of Nazareth, where their child Je- 
sus grew every day in grace and in wisdom. Luke 
goes on to say that His father and His mother 
went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn days 
of their Easter feast, but makes no mention of 
their flight into Egypt, nor of the cruelty of Herod 
toward the children of the province of Bethlehem. 
In regard to the cruelty of Herod, as neither the 
historians of that time speak of it, nor Josephus, 
the historian who wrote the life of this Herod, and 
as the other Evangelists do not mention it, it is 


Testament of John Meslier. 299 

evident that the journey of those wise men, guided 
by a star, this massacre of little children, and this 
flight to Egypt, were but absurd falsehoods. For 
it is not credible that Josephus, who blamed the 
vices of this king, could have been silent on such a 
dark and detestable action, if what the Evangelist 
said had been true. 

In regard to the duration of the public life of Je- 
sus Christ, according to what the first three Evan- 
gelists say, there could be scarcely more than three 
months from the time of His baptism until His 
death, supposing He was thirty years old when He 
was baptized by John, according to Luke, and that 
He was born on the 25th of December. For, from 
this baptism, which was in the year 15 of Tiberius 
Caesar, and in the year when Anne and Caiaphas 
were high - priests, to the first Easter following, 
which was in the month of March, there was but 
about three months ; according to what the first 
three Evangelists say, He was crucified on the eve 
of the first Easter following His baptism, and the 
first time He went to Jerusalem with His disciples; 
because all that they say of His baptism, of His 
travels, of His miracles, of His preaching, of His 
death and passion, must have taken place in the 
same year of His baptism, for the Evangelists 
speak of no other year following, and it appears 
even by the narration of His acts that He perform- 
ed them consecutively immediately after His bap- 
tism, and in a very short time, during which we see 
but an interval of six days before his Transfigura- 
tion ; during these six days we do not see that He did 


300 


Abstract of the 


anything. We see by this that He lived but about 
three months after His baptism, from which, if we 
subtract the forty days and forty nights which He 
passed in the desert immediately after His baptism, 
it would follow that the length of His public life 
from His first preaching till His death, would have 
lasted but about six weeks ; and according to what 
John says, it would have lasted at least three years 
and three months, because it appears by the Gospel 
of this apostle, that, during the course of His pub- 
lic life He might have been three or four times at 
Jerusalem at the Easter feast which happened but 
once a year. 

Now if it is true that He had been there three 
or four times after His baptism, as John testifies, 
it is false that He lived but three months after His 
baptism, and that He was crucified the first time 
He went to Jerusalem. 

If it is said that these first three Evangelists 
really mean but one year, but that they do not 
indicate distinctly the others which elapsed since 
His baptism ; or that John understood that there 
was but one Easter, although he speaks of several, 
and that he only anticipated the time when he 
repeatedly tells us that the Easter feast of the 
Jews was near at hand, and that Jesus went to 
Jerusalem, and, consequently, that there is but an 
apparent contradiction upon this subject between 
the Evangelists, I am willing to accept this ; but it 
is certain that this apparent contradiction springs 
from the fact, that they do not explain themselves 
in all the circumstances that are noted in the nar- 


Testament of John Meslier. 301 

ration which they make. Be that as it may, there 
will always be this inference made, that they were 
not inspired by God when they wrote their biogra- 
phies of Christ. 

Here is another contradiction in regard to the 
first thing which Jesus Christ did immediately after 
His baptism ; for the first three Evangelists state, 
that He was transported immediately by the Spirit 
into the desert, where He fasted forty days and 
forty nights, and where He was several times tempt- 
ed by the Devil ; and, according to what John 
says, He departed two days after His baptism to 
go into Galilee, where He performed His first mir- 
acle by changing water into wine at the wedding 
of Cana, where He found Himself three days after 
His arrival in Galilee, more than thirty leagues 
from the place in which He had been. 

In regard to the place of His first retreat after 
His departure from the desert, Matthew says that 
He returned to Galilee, and that leaving the city 
of Nazareth, He went to live at Capernaum, a 
maritime city ; and Luke says, that He came at 
first to Nazareth, and afterward went to Caper- 
naum. 

They contradict each other in regard to the time 
and manner in which the apostles followed Him ; 
for the first three say that Jesus, passing on the 
shore of the Sea of Galilee, saw Simon and Andrew 
his brother, and that He saw’ at a little distance 
James and his brother John with their father, 
Zebedee. John, on the contrary, says that it was 
Andrew, brother of Simon Peter, who first followed 


302 


Abstract of the 


Jesus with another disciple of John the Baptist, 
having seen Him pass before them, when they were 
with their Master on the shores of the Jordan. 

In regard to the Lord’s Supper, the first three 
Evangelists note that Jesus Christ instituted the 
Sacrament of His body and His blood, in the form 
of bread and wine, the same as our Roman Christ- 
worshipers say; and John does not mention this 
mysterious sacrament. John says that after this 
supper, Jesus washed His apostles’ feet, and com- 
manded them to do the same thing to each other, 
and relates a long discourse which He delivered 
then. But the other Evangelists do not speak 
of the washing of the feet, nor of the long discourse 
He gave them then. On the contrary, they testify 
that immediately after this supper, He went with 
His apostles upon the Mount of Olives, where He 
gave up His Spirit to sadness, and was in anguish 
while His apostles slept, at a short distance. They 
contradict each other upon the day on which they 
say the Lord’s Supper took place ; because on one 
side, they note that it took place Easter-eve, that 
is, the evening of the first day of Azymes, or 
of the feast of unleavened bread ; as it is noted 
(i) in Exodus, (2) in Leviticus, and (3) in Numbers; 
and, on the other hand, they say that He was 
crucified the day following the Lord’s Supper, 
about midday after the Jews had His trial during 
the whole night and morning. Now, according to 
what they say, the day after this supper took place, 
ought not to be Easter-eve. Therefore, if He died 
on the eve of Easter, toward midday, it was not 


Testament of John Me slier. 303 

on the eve of this feast that this supper took place. 
There is consequently a manifest error. 

They contradict each other, also, in regard to 
the women who followed Jesus from Galilee, for 
the first three Evangelists say that these women, 
and those who knew Him, among whom were Mary 
Magdalene, and Mary, mother of James and Jo- 
seph, and the mother of Zebedee’s children, were 
looking on at a distance when He was hanged and 
nailed upon the cross. John says, on the contrary, 
that the mother of Jesus and His mother’s sister, 
and Mary Magdalene were standing near His cross 
with John, His apostle. The contradiction is mani- 
fest, for, if these women and this disciple were near 
Him, they were not at a distance, as the others say 
they were. 

They contradict each other upon the pretended 
apparitions which they relate that Jesus made after 
His pretended resurrection ; for Matthew speaks 
of but two apparitions: the one when He appeared 
to Mary Magdalene and to another woman, also 
named Mary, and when He appeared to His eleven 
disciples who had returned to Galilee upon the 
mountain where He had appointed to meet them. 
Mark speaks of three apparitions : The first, when 
He appeared to Mary Magdalene ; the second, 
when He appeared to His two disciples, who went 
to Emmaus ; and the third, when He appeared to 
His eleven disciples, whom He reproaches for their 
incredulity. Luke speaks of but two apparitions 
the same as Matthew ; and John the Evangelist 
speaks of four apparitions, and adds to Mark’s 


304 


Abstract of the 


three, the one which He made to seven or eight 
of His disciples who were fishing upon the shores 
of the Tiberian Sea. 

They contradict each other, also, in regard to 
the place of these apparitions ; for Matthew says 
that it was in Galilee, upon a mountain ; Mark 
says that it was when they were at table ; Luke 
says that He brought them out of Jerusalem as 
far as Bethany, where He left them by rising to 
Heaven ; and John says that it was in the city of 
Jerusalem, in a house of which they had closed the 
doors, and another time upon the borders of the 
Tiberian Sea. 

Thus is much contradiction in the report of these 
pretended apparitions. They contradict each other 
in regard to His pretended ascension to heaven ; 
for Luke and Mark say positively that He went to 
heaven in presence of the eleven apostles, but nei- 
ther Matthew nor John mentions at all this pre- 
tended ascension. More than this, Matthew testi- 
fies sufficiently that He did not ascend to heaven ; 
for he said positively that Jesus Christ assured His 
apostles that He would be and remain always with 
them until the end of the world. “ Go ye,” He said 
to them, in this pretended apparition, “ and teach 
all nations, and be assured that I am with you al- 
ways, even unto the end of the world.” Luke con- 
tradicts himself upon the subject ; for in his Gospel 
he says that it was in Bethany where He ascended 
to heaven in the presence of His apostles, and in 
his Acts of the Apostles (supposing him to have 
been the author) he says that it was upon the 


Testament of John Meslier. 305 

Mount of Olives. He contradicts himself again 
about this ascension; for he notes in his Gospel 
that it was the very day of His resurrection, or the 
first night following, that He ascended to heaven ; 
and in the Acts of the Apostles he says that it was 
forty days after His resurrection; this certainly 
does not correspond. If all the apostles had really 
seen their Master gloriously rise to heaven, how 
could it be possible that Matthew and John, who 
would have seen it as well as the others, passed in 
silence such a glorious mystery, and which was so 
advantageous to their Master, considering that they 
relate many other circumstances of His life and of 
His actions which are much less important than 
this one ? How is it that Matthew does not mention 
this ascension ? And why does Christ not explain 
clearly how He would live with them always, al- 
though He left them visibly to ascend to heaven ? 
It is not easy to comprehend by what secret He 
could live with those whom He left. 

I pass in silence many other contradictions ; what 
I have said is sufficient to show that these books 
are not of Divine Inspiration, nor even of human 
wisdom, and, consequently, do not deserve that we 
should put any faith in them. 

II. — OF MIRACLES. 

But by what privilege do these four Gospels, and 
some other similar books, pass for Holy and Divine 
more than several others, which bear no less the 
title of Gospels, and which have been published 
under the name of some other apostles ? If it is 


30 6 


Abstract of the 


said that the reputed Gospels are falsely attributed 
to the apostles, we can say the same of the first 
ones ; if we suppose the first ones to be falsified 
and changed, we can think the same of the others. 
Thus there is no positive proof to make us discern 
the one from the other; in spite of the Church, 
which assumes to decide the matter, it is not 
credible. 

In regard to the pretended miracles related in 
the Old Testament, they could have been performed 
but to indicate on the part of God an unjust and 
odious discrimination between nations and between 
individuals ; purposely injuring the one in order to 
especially favor the other. The vocation and the 
choice which God made of the Patriarchs, Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, in order to make for Himself of 
their posterity a people which He would sanctify 
and bless above all other peoples of the earth, is a 
proof of it. But it will be said God is the absolute 
master of His favors and of His benefits ; He can 
grant them to whomsoever He pleases, without 
any one having the right to complain or to accuse 
Him of injustice. This reason is useless ; for God, 
the Author of nature, the Father of all men, ought 
to love them all alike as His own work, and, conse- 
quently, He ought to be equally their protector 
and their benefactor; giving them life, He ought 
to give all that is necessary for the well-being of 
His creatures. 

If all these pretended miracles of the Old and of 
the New Testament were true, we could say that 
God would have had more care in providing for the 


Testament of John Meslier. 307 

least good of men than for their greatest and prin- 
cipal good ; that He would have punished more 
severely trifling faults in certain persons than He 
would have punished great crimes in others ; and, 
finally, that He would not have desired to show 
Himself as beneficent in the most pressing needs as 
in the least. This is easy enough to show as much 
by the miracles which it is pretended that He per- 
formed, as by those which He did not perform, 
and which He would have performed rather than 
any other, if it is true that He performed any at 
all. For example, it is claimed that God had the 
kindness to send an angel to console and to assist a 
simple maid, while He left, and still leaves every 
day, a countless number of innocents to languish 
and starve to death ; it is claimed that He miracu- 
lously preserved during forty years the clothes and 
the shoes of a few people, while He will not watch 
over the natural preservation of the vast quantities 
of goods which are useful and necessary for the 
subsistence of great nations, and that are lost every 
day by different accidents. It is claimed that He 
sent to the first beings of the human race, Adam 
and Eve, a devil, or a simple serpent, to seduce 
them, and by this means ruin all men. This is not 
credible! It is claimed, that by a special provi- 
dence, He prevented the King of Gerais, a Pagan, 
from committing sin with a strange woman, al- 
though there would be no results to follow ; and 
yet He did not prevent Adam and Eve from offend- 
ing Him and falling into the sin of disobedience — 
a sin which, according to our Christ-worshipers. 


308 


Abstract of the 


was to be fatal, and cause the destruction of the 
human race. This is not credible ! 

Let us come to the pretended miracles of the 
New Testament. They consist, as is pretended, 
in this: that Jesus Christ and His apostles cured, 
through the Deity, all kinds of diseases and infirm- 
ities, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, 
speech to the dumb, making the lame to walk, 
curing the paralytics, driving the devils from those 
who were possessed, and bringing the dead to life. 

We find several of these miracles in the Gospels, 
but we see a good many more of them in the books 
that our Christ-worshipers have written of the ad- 
mirable lives of their saints ; for in these lives we 
nearly everywhere read that these pretended blessed 
ones cured diseases and infirmities, expelled the 
devils wherever they encountered them, solely in 
the name of Jesus or by the sign of the cross; that 
they controlled the elements ; that God favored 
them so much that He even preserved to them His 
Divine power after their death, and that this Di- 
vine power could be communicated even to the 
least of their clothing, even to their shadows, and 
even to the infamous instruments of their death. 
It is said that the shoe of St. Honorius raised a 
dead man on the sixth of January ; that the staff 
of St. Peter, that of St. James, and that of St. 
Bernard performed miracles. The same is said of 
the cord of St. Francis, of the staff of St. John of 
God, and of the girdle of St. Melanie. It is said 
that St. Gracilien was divinely instructed as to what 
He ought to believe and to teach, and that he, by 


Testament of John Meslier. 309 

the influence of his prayer, removed a mountain 
which prevented him from building a church ; that 
from the sepulchre of St. Andrew flowed inces- 
santly a liquor which cured all sorts of diseases ; 
that the soul of St. Benedict was seen ascending 
to Heaven clothed with a precious cloak and sur- 
rounded by burning lamps ; that St. Dominic said 
that God never refused him anything he asked ; 
that St. Francis commanded the swallows, swans, 
and other birds to obey him, and that often the 
fishes, rabbits, and the hares came and placed them- 
selves on his hands and on his lap ; that St. Paul 
and St. Pantaleon, having been beheaded, there 
flowed milk instead of blood ; that the blessed 
Peter of Luxembourg, in the first two years after 
his death (1388 and 1389), performed two thousand 
four hundred miracles, among which forty-two dead 
were brought to life, not including more than three 
thousand other miracles which he has performed 
since ; that the fifty philosophers whom St. Cath- 
erine converted, having all been thrown into a great 
fire, their whole bodies were afterward found and 
not a single hair was scorched ; that the body of 
St. Catherine was carried off by angels after her 
death, and buried by them upon Mount Sinai ; 
that the day of the canonization of St. Antoine de 
Padua, all the bells of the city of Lisbon rang of 
themselves, without any one knowing how it was 
done ; that this saint being once near the sea-shore, 
and calling the fishes, they came to him in a great 
multitude, and raised their heads out of the water 
and listened to him attentively. We should never 


Abstract of the 


3 io 

come to an end if we had to report all this idle 
talk ; there is no subject, however vain, frivolous, 
and even ridiculous, on which the authors of these 
“ Lives of the Saints ” do not take pleasure in 
heaping miracles upon miracles, for they are skill- 
ful in forging absurd falsehoods. 

It is certainly not without reason that we con- 
sider these things as lies ; for it is easy to see that 
all these pretended miracles have been invented 
but by imitating the fables of the Pagan poets. 
This is sufficiently obvious by the resemblance 
which they bear one to another. 

Ill, — SIMILARITY BETWEEN ANCIENT AND MOD- 
ERN MIRACLES. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that God endowed 
their saints with power to perform the miracles re- 
lated in their lives, some of the Pagans claim also 
that the daughters of Anius, high- priest of Apollo, 
had really received from the god Bacchus the power 
to change all they desired into wheat, into wine, or 
into oil, etc. ; that Jupiter gave to the nymphs who 
took care of his education, a horn of the goat 
which nursed him in his infancy, with this virtue, 
that it could give them an abundance of all they 
wished for. 

If our Christ-worshipers assert that their saints 
had the power of raising the dead, and that they 
had Divine revelations, the Pagans had said before 
them that Athalide, son of Mercury, had obtained 
from his father the gift of living, dying, and com- 
ing to life whenever he wished, and that he had 


Testament of John Me slier. 31 1 

also the knowledge of all that transpired in this 
world as well as in the other ; and that Esculapius, 
son of Apollo, had raised the dead, and, among 
others, he brought to life Hyppolites, son of The- 
seus, by Diana's request ; and that Hercules, also, 
raised from the dead Alceste, wife of Admetus, 
King of Thessalia, to return her to her husband. 

If our Christ-worshipers say that Christ was mi- 
raculously born of a virgin, the Pagans had said 
before them that Remus and Romulus, the found- 
ers of Rome, were miraculously born of a vestal 
virgin named Ilia, or Silvia, or Rhea Silvia ; they 
had already said that Mars, Argus, Vulcan, and 
others were born of the goddess Juno without 
sexual union ; and, also, that Minerva, goddess of 
the sciences, sprang from Jupiter’s brain, and that 
she came out of it, all armed, by means of a blow 
which this god gave to his own head. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that their saints 
made water gush from rocks, the Pagans pretend 
also that Minerva made a fountain of oil spring 
forth from a rock as a recompense for a temple 
which had been dedicated to her. 

If our Christ-worshipers boast of having received 
images from Heaven miraculously, as, for example, 
those of Notre-Dame de Loretto, and of Liesse and 
several other gifts from Heaven, as the pretended 
Holy Vial of Rheims, as the white Chasuble which 
St. Ildefonse received from the Virgin Mary, and 
other similar things: the Pagans boasted before 
them of having received a sacred shield as a mark 
of the preservation of their city of Rome, and the 


312 


Abstract of the 

Trojans boasted before them of having received 
miraculously from Heaven their Palladium, or their 
Idol of Pallas, which came, they said, to takes its 
place in the temple which they had erected in 
honor of this Goddess. 

If our Christ - worshipers pretend that Jesus 
Christ was seen by His apostles ascending to 
Heaven, and that several of their pretended saints 
were transported to Heaven by angels, the Roman 
Pagans had said before them, that Romulus, their 
founder, was seen after his death ; that Ganymede, 
son of Troas, king of Troy, was transported to 
Heaven by Jupiter to serve him as cup-bearer; 
that the hair of Berenice, being consecrated to the 
temple of Venus, was afterward carried to Heaven; 
they say the same thing of Cassiope and Andro- 
medes, and even of the ass of Silenus. 

If our Christ -worshipers pretend that several of 
their saints’ bodies were miraculously saved from 
decomposition after death, and that they were found 
by Divine Revelations, after having been lost for a 
long time, the Pagans say the same of the body of 
Orestes, which they pretend to have found through 
an oracle, etc. 

If our Christ-worshipers say that the seven sleep- 
ing brothers slept during one hundred and seventy- 
seven years, while they were shut up in a cave, the 
Pagans claim that Epimenides, the philosopher, 
slept during fifty-seven years in a cave where he 
fell asleep. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that several of their 
saints continued to speak after losing the head, or 


Testament of John Me slier. 313 

having the tongue cut out, the Pagans claim that 
the head of Gambienus recited a long poem after 
separation from his body. 

If our Christ-worshipers glorify themselves that 
their temples and churches are ornamented with 
several pictures and rich gifts which show miracu- 
lous cures performed by the intercession of their 
saints, we also see, or at least we formerly saw in 
the temple of Esculapius at Epidaurus, many paint- 
ings of miraculous cures which he had performed. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that several of 
their saints have been miraculously preserved in 
the flames without having received any injury to 
their bodies or their clothing, the Pagans claim 
that the Holy women of the temple of Diana walk- 
ed upon burning coals barefooted without burning 
or hurting their feet, and that the priests of the 
Goddess Feronie and of Hirpicus walked in the 
same way upon burning coals in the fires which 
were made in honor of Apollo. 

If the angels built a chapel for St. Clement at 
the bottom of the sea, the little house of Baucis 
and of Philemon was miraculously changed into a 
superb temple as a reward of their piety. If sev- 
eral of their saints, as St. James and St. Maurice, 
appeared several times in their armies, mounted 
and equipped in ancient style, and fought for them, 
Castor and Pollux appeared several times in battles 
and fought for the Romans against their enemies ; 
if a ram was miraculously found to be offered as a 
sacrifice in the place of Isaac, whom his father 
Abraham was about to sacrifice, the Goddess 


3 H 


Abstract of the 


Vesta also sent a heifer to be sacrificed in the 
place of Metella, daughter of Metellus : the God- 
dess Diana sent a hind in the place of Iphigenie 
when she was at the stake to be sacrificed to her, 
and by this means Iphigenie was saved. 

If St. Joseph went into Egypt by the warning of 
an angel, Simonides, the poet, avoided several great 
dangers by miraculous warnings which had been 
given to him. 

If Moses forced a stream of water to flow from a 
rock by striking it with his staff, the horse Pega- 
sus did the same : by striking a rock with his foot 
a fountain issued. 

If St. Vincent Ferrier brought to life a dead man 
hacked into pieces, whose body was already half 
roasted and half broiled, Pelops, son of Tantalus 
king of Phrygia, having been torn to pieces by hi«» 
father to be sacrificed to the Gods, they gathered 
all the pieces, joined them, and brought them to 
life. 

If several crucifixes and other images have mi- 
raculously spoken and answered, the Pagans say 
that their oracles have spoken and given answers 
to those who consulted them, and that the head of 
Orpheus and that of Policrates gave oracles after 
their death. 

If God revealed by a voice from Heaven that Je- 
sus Christ was His Son, as the Evangelists say, 
Vulcan showed by the apparition of a miraculous 
flame, that Cceculus was really his son. 

If God has miraculously nourished some of His 
saints, the Pagan poets pretend that Triptolemus 


Testament of John Me slier. 315 

was miraculously nourished with Divine milk by 
Ceres, who gave him also a chariot drawn by two 
dragons, and that Phineus, son of Mars, being born 
after his mother’s death, was nevertheless miracu- 
lously nourished by her milk. 

If several saints miraculously tamed the ferocity 
of the most cruel beasts, it is said that Orpheus at- 
tracted to him, by the sweetness of his voice and by 
the harmony of his instruments, lions, bears, and 
tigers, and softened the ferocity of their nature; 
that he attracted rocks and trees, and that even the 
rivers stopped their course to listen to his song. 

Finally, to abbreviate, because we could report 
many others, if our Christ-worshipers pretend that 
the walls of the city of Jericho fell by the sound of 
their trumpets, the Pagans say that the walls of th** 
city of Thebes were built by the sound of the mu 
sical instruments of Amphion ; the stones, as the 
poets say, arranging themselves to the sweetness of 
his harmony ; this would be much more miraculous 
and more admirable than to see the walls demolished. 

There is certainly a great similarity between the 
Pagan miracles and our own. As it would be great 
folly to give credence to these pretended miracles 
of Paganism, it is not any the less so to have faith 
in those of Christianity, because they all come from 
the same source of error. It was for this that the 
Manicheans and the Arians, who existed at the 
commencement of the Christian Era, derided these 
pretended miracles performed by the invocation of 
saints, and blamed those who invoked them after 
death and honored their relics. 


Abstract of the 


316 

Let us return at present to the principal end 
which God proposed to Himself, in sending His 
Son into the world to become man ; it must have 
been, as they say, to redeem the world from sin and 
to destroy entirely the works of the pretended Devil, 
etc. This is what our Christ-worshipers claim also, 
that Jesus Christ died for them according to His 
Father’s intention, which is plainly stated in all the 
pretended Holy Books. What ! an Almighty God, 
who was willing to become a mortal man for the 
love of men, and to shed His blood to the last 
drop, to save them all, would yet have limited His 
power to only curing a few diseases and physical 
infirmities of a few individuals who were brought to 
Him ; and would not have employed His Divine 
goodness in curing the infirmities of the soul ! that 
is to say, in curing all men of their vices and their 
depravities, which are worse than the diseases of 
their bodies ! This is not credible. What ! such a 
good God would desire to preserve dead corpses 
from decay and corruption ; and would not keep 
from the contagion and corruption of vice and sin 
the souls of a countless number of persons whom 
He sought to redeem at the price of His blood, 
and to sanctify by His grace ! What a pitiful con- 
tradiction ! 

IV.— OF THE FALSITY OF THE CHRISTIAN 
RELIGION. 

Let us proceed to the pretended visions and 
Divine Revelations, upon which our Christ-wor- 


Testament of John Meslier. 317 

shipers establish the truth and the certainty of 
their religion. 

In order to give a just idea of it, I believe it is 
best to say in general, that they are such, that if 
any one should dare now to boast of similar ones, 
or wish to make them valued, he would certainly 
be regarded as a fool or a fanatic. 

Here is what the pretended Visions and Divine 
Revelations are : 

God, as these pretended Holy Books claim, hav- 
ing appeared for the first time to Abraham, said to 
him : “ Get thee out of thy country, and from thy 
kindred and from thy father’s house, into a land 
that I will show thee.” Abraham, having gone 
there, God, says the Bible, appeared the second 
time to him, and said, “Unto thy seed will I give 
this land,” and there builded he an altar unto the 
Lord, who appeared unto him. After the death 
of Isaac, his son, Jacob going one day to Mesopo- 
tamia to look for a wife that would suit him, having 
walked all the day, and being tired from the long 
distance, desired to rest toward evening ; lying 
upon the ground, with his head resting upon a few 
stones, he fell asleep, and during his sleep he saw a 
ladder set upon the earth, and the top of it reached 
to Heaven ; and beheld the angels of God ascending 
and descending on it. And behold, the Lord stood 
above it, and said : “lam the Lord, God of Abra- 
ham thy father, and the God of Isaac ; the land 
whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to 
thy seed. And thy seed shall be as the dust of the 
earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west 


318 


Abstract of the 


and to the east, and to the north and to the south . 
and in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of 
the earth be blessed. And behold, I am with thee 
and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, 
and will bring thee again into this land : for I will 
not leave thee until I have done that which I have 
spoken to thee of.” And Jacob awaked out of his 
sleep, and he said : “ Surely the Lord is in this 
place, and I knew it not.” And he was afraid, and 
said : “ How dreadful is this place ! this is none 
other than the house of God, and this is the gate 
of Heaven.” And Jacob rose up early in the morn- 
ing, and took the stone that he had put for his 
pillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil 
<ipon the top of it, and made at the same time a 
/ow to God, that if he should return safe and 
sound, he would give Him a tithe of all he might 
possess. 

Here is yet another vision. Watching the flocks 
of his father-in-law, Laban, who had promised him 
that all the speckled lambs produced by his sheep 
should be his recompense, he dreamed one night 
that he saw all the males leap upon the females, 
and all the lambs they brought forth were speckled. 
In this beautiful dream, God appeared to him, and 
said : “ Lift up now thine eyes and see that the 
rams which leap upon the cattle are ring-streaked, 
speckled, and grizzled ; for I have seen all that 
Laban does unto thee. Now arise, get thee out 
from this land, and return unto the land of thy 
kindred.” As he was returning with his whole 
family, and with all he obtained from his father- 


Testament of John Meslier. 319 

ill-law, he had, says the Bible, a wrestle with 
an unknown man during the whole night, until 
the breaking of the day, and as this man had not 
oeen able to subdue him, He asked him who he 
was. Jacob told Him his name ; and He said : 
“Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Is- 
rael ; for as a prince hast thou power with God and 
with men, and hast prevailed.” 

This is a specimen of the first of these pretended 
Visions and Divine Revelations. We can judge 
of the others by these. Now, what appearance of 
Divinity is there in dreams so gross and illusions 
so vain ? As if some foreigners, Germans, for in- 
stance, should come into our France, and, after 
seeing all the beautiful provinces of our kingdom, 
should claim that God had appeared to them in 
their country, that He had told them to go into 
France, and that He would give to them and to 
their posterity all the beautiful lands, domains, and 
provinces of this kingdom which extend from the 
rivers Rhine and Rhone, even to the sea ; that He 
would make an everlasting alliance with them, that 
He would multiply their race, that He would make 
their posterity as numerous as the stars of Heaven 
and as the sands of the sea, etc., who would not 
laugh at such folly, and consider these strangers as 
insane fools ! 

Now there is no reason to think otherwise of 
all that has been said by these pretended Holy 
Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in regard 
to the Divine Revelations which they claim to 
have had. As to the institution of bloody sacri- 


320 


Abstract of the 


fices, the Holy Scriptures attribute it to God. As 
it would be too wearisome to go into the disgust- 
ing details of this kind of sacrifices, I refer the 
reader to Exodus.* 

Were not men insane and blind to believe they 
were honoring God by tearing into pieces, butcher- 
ing, and burning His own creatures, under the pre- 
text of offering them as sacrifices to Him ? And even 
now, how is it that our Christ-worshipers are so 
extravagant as to expect to please God the Father, 
by offering up to Him the sacrifice of His Divine 
Son, in remembrance of His being shamefully 
nailed to a cross upon which He died ? Certainly 
this can spring only from an obstinate blindness of 
mind. 

In regard to the detail of the sacrifices of ani- 
mals, it consists but in colored clothing, blood, 
plucks, livers, birds’ crops, kidneys, claws, skins, in 
the dung, smoke, cakes, certain measures of oil and 
wine, the whole being offered and infected by dirty 
ceremonies as filthy and contemptible as the most 
extravagant performances of magic. What is most 
horrible of all this is, that the law of this detesta- 
ble Jewish people commanded that even men 
should be offered up as sacrifices. The barbarians, 
whoever they were, who introduced this horrible 
law, commanded to put to death any man who had 
been consecrated to the God of the Jews, whom 
they called Adonai : and it is according to this 
execrable precept that Jephthah sacrificed his 

* See chapters xxv., xxvii., xxriii., and xxix. 


Testament of John Meslier. 321 

daughter, and that Saul wanted to sacrifice his 
son. 

But here is yet another proof of the falsity of 
these revelations of which we have spoken. It is 
the lack of the fulfillment of the great and magnifi- 
cent promises by which they were accompanied, for 
it is evident that these promises never have been 
fulfilled. 

The proof of this consists in three principal 
points : 

Firstly. Their posterity was to be more numer- 
ous than all the other nations of the world. 

Secondly. The people who should spring from 
their race were to be the happiest, the holiest, 
and the most victorious of all the people of the 
earth. 

Thirdly . His covenant was to be everlasting, and 
they should possess forever the country He should 
give them. Now it is plain that these promise* 
never were fulfilled. 

Firstly. It is certain that the Jewish people, or 
the people of Israel — which is the only one that can 
be regarded as having descended from the Patri- 
archs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the only ones 
to whom these promises should have been fulfilled — 
have never been so numerous that it could be com- 
pared with the other nations of the earth, much 
less with the sands of the sea, etc., for we see that 
in the very time when it was the most numerous 
and the most flourishing, it never occupied more 
than the little sterile provinces of Palestine and its 
environs, which are almost nothing in comparison 


322 


Abstract of the 


with the vast extent of a multitude of flourishing 
kingdoms which are on all sides of the earth. 

Secondly . They have never been fulfilled concern- 
ing the great blessings with which they were to be 
favored ; for, although they won a few small vic- 
tories over some poor nations whom they plun- 
dered, this did not prevent them from being con- 
quered and reduced to servitude ; their kingdom 
destroyed as well as their nation, by the Roman 
army ; and even now the remainder of this unfor- 
tunate nation is looked upon as the vilest and most 
contemptible of all the earth, having no country, 
no dominion, no superiority. 

Finally, these promises have not been fulfilled in 
respect to this everlasting covenant, which God 
ought to have fulfilled to them ; because we do not 
see now, and we have never seen, any evidence of 
this covenant ; and, on the contrary, they have 
been for many centuries excluded from the posses- 
sion of the small country they pretended God had 
promised that they should enjoy forever. Thus, 
since these pretended promises were never fulfilled, 
it is certain evidence of their falsity ; which proves, 
plainly, that these pretended Holy Books which 
contain them were not of Divine inspiration. 
Therefore it is useless for our Christ-worshipers 
to pretend to make use of them as infallible testi- 
mony to prove the truth of their religion. 


Testament of John Meslier. 


323 


THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

V.— (i) OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Our Christ-worshipers add to their reasons for 
credulity and to the proofs of the truth of their 
testimony, the prophecies which are, as they pre- 
tend, sure evidences of the truth of the revelations 
or inspirations of God, there being no one but God 
who could predict future events so long before they 
came to pass, as those which have been predicted 
by the prophets. 

Let us see, then, who these pretended prophets 
are, and if we ought to consider them as important 
as our Christ-worshipers pretend they are. These 
men were but visionaries and fanatics, who acted 
and spoke according to the impulsions of their 
ruling passions, and who imagined that it was the 
Spirit of God by which they spoke and acted ; or 
they were impostors who feigned to be prophets, 
and who, in order to more easily deceive the igno- 
rant and simple-minded, boasted of acting and 
speaking by the Spirit of God. I would like to 
know how an Ezekiel would be received who 
should say that God made him eat for his break- 
fast a roll of parchment ; commanded him to be 
tied like an insane man, and lie three hundred and 
ninety days upon his right side, and forty days 
upon his left, and commanded him to eat man’s 
dung upon his bread, and afterward, as an accom- 
modation, cow’s dung? I ask how such a filthy 
statement would be received by the most stupid 
people of our provinces ? 


324 


Abstract of the 


What can be yet a greater proof of the falsity 
of these pretended prophecies, than the violence 
with which these prophets reproach each other for 
speaking falsely in the name of God, reproaches 
which they claim to make in behalf of God. All 
of them say, “ Beware of the false prophets ! ” as 
the quacks say, “ Beware of the counterfeit pills ! 
How could these insane impostors tell the future ? 
No prophecy in favor of their Jewish nation was 
ever fulfilled. The number of prophecies which 
predict the prosperity and the greatness of Jerusa- 
lem is almost innumerable ; in explanation of this, 
it will be said that it is very natural that a subdued 
and captive people should comfort themselves in 
their real afflictions by imaginary hopes — as a year 
after King James was deposed, the Irish people of 
his party forged several prophecies in regard to him. 

But if these promises made to the Jews had been 
really true, the Jewish nation long ago would have 
been, and would still be, the most numerous, the 
most powerful, the most blessed, and the most vic- 
torious of all nations. 

VI. — (2) THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Let us examine the pretended prophecies which 
are contained in the Gospels. 

Firstly . An angel having appeared in a dream to 
a man named Joseph, father, or at least so reputed, 
of Jesus, son of Mary, said unto him : 

“ Joseph, thou son of David fear not to take unto 
thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in 
her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring 


Testament of John Meslier. 325 

forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS; 
for He shall save His people from their sins/’ 

This angel said also to Mary : 

“ Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with 
God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy 
womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His 
name Jesus. He shall be great, and shc.ll be called 
the Son of the Highest : and the Lord God shall 
give unto Him the throne of His father David. 
And He shall reign over the house of Jacob for- 
ever ; and of His kingdom there shall be no end ! ” 
Jesus began to preach and to say: 

“ Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. 
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or 
what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body what ye 
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and 
the body than raiment, for your Heavenly Father 
knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 
But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His 
righteousness, and all these things shall be added 
unto you.” 

Now, let every man who has not lost common 
sense, examine if this Jesus ever was a king, or if 
His disciples had abundance of all things. This 
Jesus promised to deliver the world from sin. Is 
there any prophecy which is more false? Is not 
our age a striking proof of it ? It is said that Jesus 
came to save His people. In what way did He 
save it ? It is the greatest number which rules any 
party. For example, one dozen or two of Span- 
iards or Frenchmen do not constitute the French 
or Spanish people; and if an army of a hundred 


326 


Abstract of the 


and twenty thousand men were taken prisoners of 
war by an army of enemies which was stronger, 
and if the chief of this army should redeem only a 
few men, as ten or twelve soldiers or officers, by 
paying their ransom, it could not be claimed that 
he had delivered or redeemed his army. Then, 
who is this God who has been sacrificed, who died 
to save the world, and leaves so many nations 
damned ? What a pity ! and what horror ! 

Jesus Christ says that we have but to ask and we 
shall receive, and to seek and we shall find. He 
assures us that all we ask of God in His name shall 
be granted, and that if we have faith as a grain of 
mustard-seed, we could by one word remove moun- 
tains. If this promise is true, nothing appears im- 
possible to our Christ-worshipers who have faith in 
Jesus. However, the contrary happens. If Mo- 
hammed had made the promises to his votaries 
that Christ made to His, without success, what 
would not be said about it. They would cry 
out, “ Ah, the cheat ! ah, the impostor ! ” These 
Christ-worshipers are in the same condition : they 
have been blind, and have not even yet recov- 
ered from their blindness ; on the contrary, they 
are so ingenious in deceiving themselves, that 
they pretend that these promises have been ful- 
filled from the beginning of Christianity ; that 
at that time it was necessary to have miracles, 
in order to convince the incredulous of the truth 
of religion ; but that this religion being sufficient- 
ly established, the miracles were no longer necessa- 
ry. Where, then, is their proof of all this ? 


Testament of John M e slier . 327 

Besides, He who made these promises did not 
limit them to a certain time, or to certain places, 
or to certain persons ; but He made them gener- 
ally to everybody. The faith of those who be- 
lieve, says He, shall be followed by these miracles; 
“ They shall cast out devils in My name, they shall 
speak in divers tongues, they shall handle ser- 
pents, M etc. 

In regard to the removal of mountains, He posi- 
tively says that “ whoever shall say to a mountain : 
* Be thou removed , and be thou cast into the sea ; * it 
shall be done ; ” provided that he does not doubt 
in his heart, but believes all he commands will be 
done. Are not all these promises given in a gen- 
eral way, without restriction as to time, place, or 
persons ? 

It is said that all the sects which are founded in 
errors and imposture will come to a shameful end. 
But if Jesus Christ intends to say that He has es- 
tablished a society of followers who will not fall 
either into vice or error, these words are absolutely 
false, as there is in Christendom no sect, no socie- 
ty, and no church which is not full of errors and 
vices, especially the Roman Church, although it 
claims to be the purest and the holiest of all. It 
was born into error, or rather it was conceived and 
formed in error ; and even now it is full of delu- 
sions which are contrary to the intentions, the sen- 
timents, or the doctrine of its Founder, because it 
has, contrary to His intention, abolished the laws 
of the Jews, which He approved, and which He 
came Himself, as He said, to fulfill and not to 


328 


Abstract of the 


destroy. It has fallen into the errors and idolatry 
of Paganism, as is seen by the idolatrous worship 
which is offered to its God of dough, to its saints, 
to their images, and to their relics. 

I know well that our Christ-worshipers consider 
it a lack of intelligence to accept literally the 
promises and prophecies as they are expressed ; 
they reject the literal and natural sense of the 
words, to give them a mystical and spiritual sense 
which they call allegorical and figurative; claim- 
ing, for example, that the people of Israel and Ju- 
dea, to whom these promises were made, were not 
understood as the Israelites after the body, but the 
Israelites in spirit : that is to say, the Christians 
which are the Israel of God, the true chosen people *, 
that by the promise made to this enslaved people, 
to deliver it from captivity, it is understood to be 
not the corporal deliverance of a single captive peo- 
ple, but the spiritual deliverance of all men from 
the servitude of the Devil, which was to be accom- 
plished by their Divine Saviour ; that by the abun- 
dance of riches, and all the temporal blessings 
promised to this people, is meant the abundance 
of spiritual graces ; and finally, that by the city of 
Jerusalem, is meant not the terrestrial Jerusalem, 
but the spiritual Jerusalem, which is the Christian 
Church. 

But it is easy to see that these spiritual and alle- 
gorical meanings having only a strange, imaginary 
sense, being a subterfuge of the interpreters, can 
not serve to show the truth or the falsehood of a 
proposition, or of any promises whatever. It is 


Testament of John Meslier 329 

ridiculous to forge such allegorical meanings, since 
it is only by the relations of the natural and true 
sense that we can judge of their truth or false- 
hood. A proposition, a promise, for example, 
which is considered true in the proper and natural 
sense of the terms in which it is expressed, will not 
become false in itself under cover of a strange sense, 
one which does not belong to it. By the same 
reasoning, that which is manifestly false in its 
proper and natural sense, will not become true 
in itself, although we give it a strange sense, one 
foreign to the true. 

We can say that the prophecies of the Old Tes- 
tament adjusted to the New, would be very absurd 
and puerile things. For example, Abraham had 
two wives, of which the one, who was but a serv- 
ant, represented the synagogue, and the other one, 
his lawful wife, represented the Christian Church ; 
and that this Abraham had two sons, of which the 
one born of Hagar, the servant, represented the 
Old Testament ; and the other, born of Sarah, the 
wife, represented the New Testament, Who would 
not laugh at such a ridiculous doctrine? 

Is it not amusing that a piece of red cloth, ex- 
hibited by a prostitute as a signal to spies, in the 
Old Testament is made to represent the blood of 
Jesus Christ shed in the New? If — according to 
this manner of interpreting allegorically all that is 
said, done, and practiced in the ancient law of the 
Jews — we should interpret in the same allegorical 
way all the discourses, the actions, and the advent- 
ures of the famous Don Quixote de la Mancha, 


330 Abstract of the 

we would find the same sort of mysteries and ridic- 
ulous figures. 

It is nevertheless upon this absurd foundation 
that the whole Christian religion rests. Thus it is 
that there is scarcely anything in this ancient law 
that the Christ-worshiping doctors do not try to 
explain in a mystical way to build up their system. 
The most false and the most ridiculous prophecy 
ever made is that of Jesus, in Luke, where it is pre- 
tended that there will be signs in the sun and in 
the moon, and that the Son of Man will appear in 
a cloud to judge men ; and this is predicted for the 
generation living at that time. Has it come to 
pass? Did the Son of Man appear in a cloud ? 

VII. — ERRORS OF DOCTRINE AND OF MORALITY. 

The Christian Apostolical Roman Religion 
teaches, and compels belief, that there is but one 
God, and, at the same time, that there are three 
Divine persons, each one being God. This is ab- 
surd ; for if there are three who are truly God, then 
there are three Gods. It is false, then, to say that 
there is but one God ; or if this is true, it is false to 
say that there are really three who are God, for one 
and three can not be claimed to be one and the 
same number. It is also said that the first of these 
pretended Divine persons, called the Father, has 
brought forth the second person, which is called 
the Son, and that these first two persons together 
have produced the third, which is called the Holy 
Ghost, and, nevertheless, these three pretended 
Divine persons do not depend the one upon the 


Testament of John Meslier. 


33 i 


other, and even that one is not older than the 
other. This, too, is manifestly absurd ; because 
one thing can not receive its existence from another 
thing without some dependence on this other ; and 
a thing must necessarily exist in order to give 
birth to another. If, then, the Second and the 
Third persons of Divinity have received their exist- 
ence from the First person, they must necessarily 
depend for their existence on this First person, 
who gave them birth, or who begot them, and it is 
necessary also that the First person of the Divinity, 
who gave birth to the two other persons, should 
have existed before them ; because that which does 
not exist can not beget anything. Nevertheless, 
it is repugnant as well as absurd to claim that any- 
thing could be begotten or born without having 
had a beginning. Now, according to our Christ- 
worshipers, the Second and Third persons of Divin- 
ity were begotten and born ; then they had a be- 
ginning, and the First person had none, not being 
begotten by another ; it therefore follows necessa- 
rily that one existed before the other. 

Our Christ-worshipers, who feel these absurdities 
and can not avoid them by any good reasoning, 
have no other resource than to say that we must 
ignore human reason and humbly adore these sub- 
lime mysteries without wishing to understand them ; 
but that which they call faith is refuted when they 
tell us that we must submit ; it is telling us that 
we must blindly believe that which we do not be- 
lieve. Our Christ-worshipers condemn the blind- 
ness of the ancient Pagans, who worshiped several 


332 


Abstract of the * 


Gods; they deride the genealogy of those Gods, 
their birth, their marriages, and the generating of 
their children ; yet they do not observe that they 
themselves say things which are much more ridicu- 
lous and absurd. 

If the Pagans believed that there were Goddesses 
as well as Gods, that these Gods and Goddesses 
married and begat children, they thought of noth- 
ing, then, but what is natural ; for they did not 
believe yet that the Gods were without body or 
feeling; they believed they were similar to men. 
Why should there not be females as well as males ? 
It is not more reasonable to deny or to recognize 
the one than the other ; and supposing there were 
Gods and Goddesses, why should they not beget 
children in the ordinary way? There would be 
certainly nothing ridiculous or absurd in this doc 
trine, if it were true that their Gods existed. But 
in the doctrine of our Christ-worshipers there is 
something absolutely ridiculous and absurd; for 
besides claiming that one God forms Three, and 
that these Three form but One, they pretend that 
this Triple and Unique God has neither body, 
form, nor face; that the First person of this Triple 
and Unique God, whom they call the Father, begot 
of Himself a Second person, which they call the 
Son, and which is the same as His Father, being, 
like Him, without body, form, or face. If this is 
true, why is it that the First one is called Father 
rather than mother, or the Second called Son rather 
than daughter? For if the First one is really father 
instead of mother, and if the Second is son instead 


Testament of John Meslier. 333 

of daughter, there must be something in both of 
these two persons which causes the one to be father 
rather than mother, and the other to be son rather 
than daughter. Now who can assert that they are 
males and not females? But how should they be 
rather males than females, as they have neither 
body, form, nor face? That is not an imaginable 
thing, and destroys itself. No matter, they claim 
chat these two Persons, without body, form, or 
face, and, consequently, without difference of sex, 
are nevertheless Father and Son, and that they 
produced by their mutual love a third person, whom 
they called the Holy Ghost, who has, like the other 
two, no body, no form, and no face. What abomi- 
nable nonsense ! 

As our Christ-worshipers limit the power of God 
the Father to begetting but one Son, why do they 
not desire that this Second person, and the Third, 
should have the same power to beget a Son like 
themselves ? If this power to beget a son is perfec- 
tion in the First person, it is, then, a perfection and 
a power which does not exist in the Second and in 
the Third person. Thus these two Persons, lacking 
a perfection and a power which is found in the 
First one, they are consequently not equal with 
Him. If, on the contrary, they say that this power 
to beget a son is no perfection, they should not 
attribute it, then, to the First person any more 
than to the other two ; for we should attribute per- 
fections only to an absolutely perfect being. Be- 
sides, they would not dare to say that the power 
to beget a Divine person is not a perfection ; and 


334 


Abstract of the 


if they claim that this First person could have be- 
gotten several sons and daughters, but that He de- 
sired but this only Son, and that the two other 
persons did not desire to beget any others, we could 
ask them, firstly , from whence they know this, for 
we do not see in their pretended Holy Scriptures 
that any One of these Divine personages reveals 
any such assertions; how, then, can our Christ- 
worshipers know anything about it ? They speak 
but according to their ideas and to their hollow 
imaginations. Secondly , We could not avoid say- 
ing, that if these pretended Divine personages had 
the power of begetting several children, and did 
not wish to make use of it, the consequence would 
be that this Divine power was ineffectual. It would 
be entirely without effect in the Third person, who 
did not beget or produce any, and would be almost 
without effect in the two others, because they lim- 
ited it. Then this power of begetting or producing 
an unlimited number of children would remain idle 
and useless; it would be inconsistent to suppose 
this of Divine Personages, One of whom had already 
produced a Son. 

Our Christ-worshipers blame and condemn the 
Pagans because they attribute Divinity to mortal 
men, and worship them as Gods after their death ; 
they are right in doing this. But these Pagans did 
only what our Christ-worshipers still do in attrib- 
uting Divinity to their Christ ; doing which, they 
condemn themselves also, because they are in the 
same error as these Pagans, in that they worship a 


Testament of John Meslier. 335 

man who was mortal, and so very mortal that He 
died shamefully upon a cross. 

It would be of no use for our Christ-worshipers 
to say that there was a great difference between 
their Jesus Christ and the Pagan Gods, under the 
pretense that their Christ was, as they claim, really 
God and man at the same time, while the Divinity 
was incarnated in Him, by means of which, the 
Divine nature found itself united personally, as 
they say, with human nature ; these two natures 
would have made of Jesus Christ a true God and a 
true man ; this is what never happened, they claim, 
in the Pagan Gods. 

But it is easy to show the weakness of this reply ; 
for, on the one hand, was it not as easy to the Pa- 
gans as to the Christians, to say that the Divinity 
was incarnated in the men whom they worshiped 
as Gods? On the other hand, if the Divinity 
wanted to incarnate and unite in the human nature 
of their Jesus Christ, how did they know that this 
Divinity would not wish to also incarnate and unite 
Himself personally to the human nature of those 
great men and those admirable women, who, by 
their virtue, by their good qualities, or by their 
noble actions, have excelled the generality of peo- 
ple, and made themselves worshiped as Gods and 
Goddesses ? And if our Christ-worshipers do not 
wish to believe that Divinity ever incarnated in 
these great personages, why do they wish to per- 
suade us that He was incarnated in their Jesus? 
Where is the proof? Their faith and their belief ; 


33 $ 


Abstract of the 


but as the Pagans rely on the same proof, we con- 
clude both to be equally in error. 

But what is more ridiculous in Christianity than 
in Paganism, is that the Pagans have generally at- 
tributed Divinity but to great men, authors of arts 
and sciences, and who excelled in virtues useful to 
their country. But to whom do our God-Christ- 
worshipers attribute Divinity? To a nobody, to a 
vile and contemptible man, who had neither talent, 
science, nor ability ; born of poor parents, and who, 
while He figured in the world, passed but for a 
monomaniac and a seditious fool, who was dis- 
dained, ridiculed, persecuted, whipped, and, finally, 
was hanged like most of those who desired to act 
the same part, when they had neither the courage 
nor skill. About that time there were several 
other impostors who claimed to be the true prom- 
ised Messiah; amongst others a certain Judas, a 
Galilean, a Theodorus, a Barcon, and others who, 
under this vain pretext, abused the people, and 
tried to excite them, in order to win them, but 
they all perished. 

Let us pass now to His discourses and to some 
of His actions, which are the most singular of this 
kind : “ Repent,” said He to the people, “ for the 
kingdom of Heaven is at hand ; believe these good 
tidings.” And He went all over Galilee preaching 
this pretended approach of the kingdom of Heaven. 
As no one has seen the arrival of this kingdom 
of Heaven, it is evident that it was but imaginary. 
But let us see other predictions, the praise, and 
the description of this beautiful kingdom. 


Testament of John Meslier. 337 

Behold what He said to the people : 

The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man 
who sowed good seed in his field. But while he 
slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the 
wheat, and went his way. Again, the kingdom of 
Heaven is like unto treasure hidden in a field, the 
which, when a man has found, he hideth again, and 
for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and 
buys that field. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is 
like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls, 
who, when he had found one pearl of great price, 
went and sold all he had, and bought it. Again, 
the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a net that 
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind ; 
which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and 
sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but 
cast the bad away. It is like a grain of mustard- 
seed, which a man took and sowed in his field 
which, indeed, is the least of all seeds, but when it 
is grown it is the greatest among herbs, etc. 

Is this a language worthy of a God ? We will 
pass the same judgment upon Him if we examine 
His actions more closely. Because, firstly , He is 
represented as running all over a country preaching 
the approach of a pretended kingdom ; Secondly , 
As having been transported by the Devil upon a 
high mountain, from which He believed He saw 
all the kingdoms of the world ; this could only 
happen to a visionist ; for it is certain, there is 
no mountain upon the earth from which He 
could see even one entire kingdom, unless it was 
the little kingdom of Yvetot, which is in France : 


338 


Abstract of the 


thus it was only in imagination that He saw all 
these kingdoms, and was transported upon this 
mountain, as well as upon the pinnacle of the 
temple. Thirdly , When He cured the deaf-mute, 
spoken of in St. Mark, it is said that He placed 
His fingers in the ears, spit, and touched his tongue, 
then casting His eyes up to Heaven, He sighed 
deeply, and said unto him : “ Ephphatha ! ” Fi- 
nally, let us read all that is related of Him, and 
we can judge whether there is anything in the 
world more ridiculous. 

Having considered some of the silly things at- 
tributed to God by our Christ-worshipers, let us 
look a little further into their mysteries. They 
worship one God in three persons, or three persons 
in one God, and they attribute to themselves the 
power of forming Gods out of dough, and of mak- 
ing as many as they want. For, according to their 
principles, they have only to say four words over a 
certain quantity of wine or over these little images 
of paste, to make as many Gods of them as they 
desire. What folly ! With all the pretended power 
of their Christ, they would not be able to make 
the smallest fly, and yet they claim the ability to 
produce millions of Gods. One must be struck by 
a strange blindness to maintain such pitiable things, 
and that upon such vain foundation as the equivocal 
words of a fanatic. Do not these blind theologians 
see that it means opening a wide door to all sorts 
of idolatries, to adore these paste images under the 
pretext that the priests have the power of conse- 
crating them and changing them into Gods ? Can 


Testament of John Meslier. 339 

not the priests of the idols boast of having a simi- 
lar ability ? 

Do they not see, also, that the same reasoning 
which dempnstrates the vanity of the gods or idols 
of wood, of stone, etc., which the Pagans worshiped, 
shows exactly the same vanity of the Gods and idols 
of paste or of flour which our Christ-worshipers 
adore? By what right do they deride the falseness 
of the Pagan Gods ? Is it not because they are but 
the work of human hands, mute and insensible im- 
ages ? And what kind of Gods are those which we 
preserve in boxes for fear of the mice ? 

What are these boasted resources of the Christ- 
worshipers ? Their morality ? It is the same as in 
all religions, but their cruel dogmas produced and 
taught persecution and trouble. Their miracles? 
But what people has not its own, and what wise 
men do not disdain these fables ? Their prophe- 
cies? Have we not shown their falsity? Their 
morals? Are they not often infamous? The es- 
tablishment of their religion ? but did not fanati- 
cism begin, and has not intrigue visibly sustained 
this edifice ? The doctrine ? but is it not the height 
of absurdity? 


ESD OF THE ABSTRACT BY VOLTAIRE. 




























































. 












■# 











* 



